planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:36 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 6:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14179
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
I think no one is making another one an idiot here.

It s just some of us feel it s not worth for our own delight to see drivers facing unnecessary risks.

Brake failure and crashing heavily because of it is unfortunatelly a risk a driver has to take when racing
.

Bouncing wheels or other flying objects hitting you in the head, isn t.

But it is only my opinion , it doesn t mean i am right.

Limiting to speed to say 60MPH would make things a lot safer. Would you support that? If not then you have a line where you consider things "safe enough" just like me. Your line may fall in a different place but it's still there.

... And? How does the existence of a line where things are 'safe enough' invalidate the opinion that safety is worth striving for?

You're using a classic junk debating tactic - assigning your opponent some extreme, absurd version of their position and then mocking them for it. Not a good way to debate. If you want to actually engage in the conversation, try engaging the actual conversation instead of that straw man. Nobody is advocating limiting the whole race to pit speeds, and it's insulting to imply that there's any equivalence between something designed to protect against head hits in an open cockpit car and a cessation of racing at all. Is it not racing if people can't still be hit in the head with a wheel? Because that's what you seem to be implying with this equivalence.

I'm sure everyone has a line where they think the racing is safe enough. For me, it's when nobody dies as long as all the safety provisions and rules are followed. I think we're just about there, and I honestly think the halo is unnecessary.

Where we appear to fundamentally disagree is that you seem to regard danger - the present risk of losing one's life, specifically - as necessary for racing. I disagree wholeheartedly. The risk of a mistake ending your race is absolutely necessary, but I think sporting mistakes should have sporting penalties, not fatal ones. There is no reason I can see why racing is made better by the possibility of death following a mistake (or mechanical issue wholly outside the driver's control, even more so).


Have I actually said that paul_gmb is in favour of limiting cars to 60mph? If not then aren't you being rather hypocritical? Is what you have written in bold not exactly what you are doing to me?

I asked if he would be favour of it and chose and extreme example to try and show him that out positions are not so different. He argued against the idea that someones life should be put in danger for his entertainment. I was trying to show him that up to a point he was still ok with that. I.E he does have a point where he considers the risks small enough that it is ok for someones life to be put in danger.

So I'm afraid your accusations of me building a straw man argument have rather backfired and in re-framing the arguments I was making have rather built one yourself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 7:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5899
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Have I actually said that paul_gmb is in favour of limiting cars to 60mph? If not then aren't you being rather hypocritical? Is what you have written in bold not exactly what you are doing to me?

I asked if he would be favour of it and chose and extreme example to try and show him that out positions are not so different.

No, you never said he was in favor of the cars being limited to 60 mph. What you did instead was liken his real position of making the cars safer to that hypothetical and absurd position.

What you've done is crate a false equivalence between safety improvements that are clearly and unarguably detrimental to the racing - limiting the cars to 60 mph - and safety improvements that have no objective negative impact on the racing - devices such as the Halo.

mikeyg123 wrote:
He argued against the idea that someones life should be put in danger for his entertainment. I was trying to show him that up to a point he was still ok with that. I.E he does have a point where he considers the risks small enough that it is ok for someones life to be put in danger.

This is the classic 'where does it stop?' exaggeration that anyone can use to make any argument look unreasonable. Beyond that, it's another false equivalence - if his point of acceptance is where the danger is so low as to be nearly non-existent, that's completely different from a point of acceptance where you are accepting that drivers may very well die in the line of driving. A player can die on the football pitch, but it's so unlikely that nobody who watches considers it a real chance. If that's where someone draws the line in motorsport, they are effectively drawing the line at where they consider there to be no realistic chance of a driver dying. They are not accepting that a driver may die for their entertainment.

Motor racing can never be 100% safe - that's in the nature of heavy objects moving at great speed. But there is a great difference between accepting that reality and taking it one step further to declare that because it can never be completely safe there is no reason to make it safer. If safety improvements don't interfere with the fundamental act of racing, what's the justification for not instituting them?

Safety improvements that are by nature detrimental to the act of racing - speed limits, driverless cars, arguably run-off areas - are not in the same category as those that have no cost to the ability to race. In the one category, the end result is indeed no longer holding the race at all, when you remove some ability to race to make the sport safer. In the other category, the end result is merely the safest car possible that can still do exactly what it's intended to do. Seat belts, HANS devices, helmets, and the Halo all fall in this category. There is no measurable way (aside from possibly weight) in which the Halo makes the racing worse. It is not a road that leads to no longer racing. It is merely a road that leads to racing a safer car.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 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)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6438
Mort Canard wrote:
This, to me, is what the halo is designed for. Henry Surtees Brands Hatch Crash 2009



Might have helped Philipe Massa, but the spring could have easily slipped beneath the halo.



I don't know, I'm still being sceptical about the Henry Surtees one, the hit came from a tyre falling almost straight from above. The Halo is open from above, so it could still allow such a hit in the future. A very unlucky hit, but not impossible, it was similar to the Justin Wilson one, the nose cone falling from some height above the driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4798
It's hard to tell from the camera angle. But it looks to that although the trajectory was fairly vertical at the point of impact but not necessarily directly over his head. If that's the case a lot of the force would've been absorbed by the Halo.

You also have to keep in mind that this wasn't a moving wheel coming into contact with a stationary car. The car was moving roughly perpendicular to the line of travel of the wheel which means that as the wheel came down more of the car was under it. With a Halo installed the impact would've been further forward and higher up than the drivers head.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6438
RaggedMan wrote:
It's hard to tell from the camera angle. But it looks to that although the trajectory was fairly vertical at the point of impact but not necessarily directly over his head. If that's the case a lot of the force would've been absorbed by the Halo.

You also have to keep in mind that this wasn't a moving wheel coming into contact with a stationary car. The car was moving roughly perpendicular to the line of travel of the wheel which means that as the wheel came down more of the car was under it. With a Halo installed the impact would've been further forward and higher up than the drivers head.

I agree that there is more restriction with the Halo installed, that's why I'm a bit sceptical. But the top is still open and at least the Surtees one was at a relatively lower speed (not stationary of course).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 326
I think in the henry surtees case, the fia said that from analysis it would have definitelly helped.

The point some of us are making, at least i am trying to make, is that we don t see the racing being worse because of the halo.

Other aspects, besides the racing, i don t care for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2032
paul_gmb wrote:
I think in the henry surtees case, the fia said that from analysis it would have definitelly helped.

The point some of us are making, at least i am trying to make, is that we don t see the racing being worse because of the halo.

Other aspects, besides the racing, i don t care for.


So, you advocate getting rid of open wheels and you favour a closed cockpit over the halo?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 2:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5899
Location: Michigan, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
I think in the henry surtees case, the fia said that from analysis it would have definitelly helped.

The point some of us are making, at least i am trying to make, is that we don t see the racing being worse because of the halo.

Other aspects, besides the racing, i don t care for.

So, you advocate getting rid of open wheels and you favour a closed cockpit over the halo?

I don't know about him, but I do. A close wheeled, closed cockpit car like the McLaren or Red Bull concept would be faster, safer, better able to follow the car in front, and look more futuristic to boot. What's not to like?

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 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)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6438
paul_gmb wrote:
I think in the henry surtees case, the fia said that from analysis it would have definitelly helped.

The point some of us are making, at least i am trying to make, is that we don t see the racing being worse because of the halo.

Other aspects, besides the racing, i don t care for.


I am not sure, I haven't read the FIA report and frankly I am not going to argue "what if it was 10mm to the left"... In any case, I fully agree with you the racing is not affected, just the visual part of it.

Spa is the one racing I'm looking for regarding the Halo (apart from being an awesome race!), as drivers expressed their concern of being unable to see at a higher ground ahead on a steep hill because of the Halo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4798
Siao7 wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
I think in the henry surtees case, the fia said that from analysis it would have definitelly helped.

The point some of us are making, at least i am trying to make, is that we don t see the racing being worse because of the halo.

Other aspects, besides the racing, i don t care for.


I am not sure, I haven't read the FIA report and frankly I am not going to argue "what if it was 10mm to the left"... In any case, I fully agree with you the racing is not affected, just the visual part of it.

Spa is the one racing I'm looking for regarding the Halo (apart from being an awesome race!), as drivers expressed their concern of being unable to see at a higher ground ahead on a steep hill because of the Halo.

Has anyone said anything about St. Devot yet? While not a direct analog to Eau Rouge it is a situation where the drivers will be looking up and to the side while making a turn.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6438
RaggedMan wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
I think in the henry surtees case, the fia said that from analysis it would have definitelly helped.

The point some of us are making, at least i am trying to make, is that we don t see the racing being worse because of the halo.

Other aspects, besides the racing, i don t care for.


I am not sure, I haven't read the FIA report and frankly I am not going to argue "what if it was 10mm to the left"... In any case, I fully agree with you the racing is not affected, just the visual part of it.

Spa is the one racing I'm looking for regarding the Halo (apart from being an awesome race!), as drivers expressed their concern of being unable to see at a higher ground ahead on a steep hill because of the Halo.

Has anyone said anything about St. Devot yet? While not a direct analog to Eau Rouge it is a situation where the drivers will be looking up and to the side while making a turn.


I haven't read anything about St. Devot. It doesn't mean they haven't discussed it of course


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 326
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
I think in the henry surtees case, the fia said that from analysis it would have definitelly helped.

The point some of us are making, at least i am trying to make, is that we don t see the racing being worse because of the halo.

Other aspects, besides the racing, i don t care for.


So, you advocate getting rid of open wheels and you favour a closed cockpit over the halo?


i didn t answer before because i really don't think i can add anything of value.

i understand where you are coming from with your point, but honestly, I don't know what to answer.

Frankly speaking, I would continue to watch F1. Advocating on matters like these is not my job and I really don't have the expertise. But again, I would continue to watch F1 and get used to it within a race or two. WIth the halo I really don't notice it anymore. But it''s just me, I don't expect everyone to agree with me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3140
paul_gmb wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
paul_gmb wrote:
I think in the henry surtees case, the fia said that from analysis it would have definitelly helped.

The point some of us are making, at least i am trying to make, is that we don t see the racing being worse because of the halo.

Other aspects, besides the racing, i don t care for.


So, you advocate getting rid of open wheels and you favour a closed cockpit over the halo?


i didn t answer before because i really don't think i can add anything of value.

i understand where you are coming from with your point, but honestly, I don't know what to answer.

Frankly speaking, I would continue to watch F1. Advocating on matters like these is not my job and I really don't have the expertise. But again, I would continue to watch F1 and get used to it within a race or two. WIth the halo I really don't notice it anymore. But it''s just me, I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

The same argument could be made about roll hoops. Cars didn't used to have them, suggesting we add them could have been said "so you advocated 'higher than the driver's shoulder bodywork' then do you?"

Maybe a canopy would be safer than a roll hoop - the jury is still out on that as it could add more risks with regards to the driver being trapped, for instance. The halo wasn't added overnight, there was years of research done to ascertain whether it was necessary and whether it would make the sport safer.

Would getting rid of open wheels make the sport safer? It would probably reduce the change of dramatic collisions, but the halo isn't designed to stop dramatic collisions, it's designed to minimise the danger after that. Getting rid of open wheels would probably make the halo irrelevant - as the main problem - wheels flying off - would occur far less often. The point of the halo is to try and retain the same type of racing formula.

Closed wheels would be a different kind of formula.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 2:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 395
Location: Kansas
RaggedMan wrote:
It's hard to tell from the camera angle. But it looks to that although the trajectory was fairly vertical at the point of impact but not necessarily directly over his head. If that's the case a lot of the force would've been absorbed by the Halo.

You also have to keep in mind that this wasn't a moving wheel coming into contact with a stationary car. The car was moving roughly perpendicular to the line of travel of the wheel which means that as the wheel came down more of the car was under it. With a Halo installed the impact would've been further forward and higher up than the drivers head.


To me the halo would most likely have prevented Henry Surtees death. If the tire had been traveling the same direction as Surtees car then the tire might have been able to thread the needle and hit Henry's helmet from directly above. The tire, however was traveling rather slowly and moving across the track from one side to the other. I can't see how the halo could have not contacted the tire before it hit Henry's helmet. There is a chance that Henry's helmet could still have hit the tire but it would have been after the halo had hit the tire and a lot of the speed differential between Henry's helmet and the tire would have been nullified. Remember that the Halo as implemented is somewhat taller than the top of drivers helmet. This means that a falling object has to have perfect timing to be able to go over the halo but still contact the drivers helmet. Look at where the black tire smudge is on Henry's helmet. It's right on top of his visor on the right side of his body. The smudge is not directly on top of the helmet, but more on the front of the helmet.

Would take a physicist to calculate the rate of a falling object to be able bullseye a drivers helmet over the top of a halo at any given speed.

I actually think the Tadasuke Makino crash offers more opportunity for a wreck that defeats the halo. If one car is parked on top of another, a low hanging bit from the top car could protrude down into the area inside the halo and still hit the drivers helmet. As long as the top car is sliding across the top of the lower car at a decent speed differential, then there is not much chance for anything to drop into the halo opening and thump the lower drivers helmet.


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: Blake, kleefton 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