F1 to introduce 'halo' device
Discussion
amgmcqueen said:
This stupid device is just another step to further watering down and already over-regulated, nannying sport. Massive run off areas, driving behind the safety car because its raining, ridiculous pit lane speed limits etc, etc.
Whats next? Closed cockpits? Stupid indycar wheel covers? This is just a knee jerk reaction to a very tragic, freak accident.
F1 always has, and always should be an open cockpit formula. I cannot see how multiple devices in front of the drivers eye line is very helpful to their field of vision. My only worry is that when a device like the Halo is implemented, it is very hard to get rid of it, especially when it is linked with 'safety'.
You only have to look at MotoGP to see how ridiculously safe F1 has become over the years. Trouble is it's slowly sapped all the excitement out of an already stale spectacle.
Is it exciting to watch men die on television? If so, then you watch F1 for different reasons to me.Whats next? Closed cockpits? Stupid indycar wheel covers? This is just a knee jerk reaction to a very tragic, freak accident.
F1 always has, and always should be an open cockpit formula. I cannot see how multiple devices in front of the drivers eye line is very helpful to their field of vision. My only worry is that when a device like the Halo is implemented, it is very hard to get rid of it, especially when it is linked with 'safety'.
You only have to look at MotoGP to see how ridiculously safe F1 has become over the years. Trouble is it's slowly sapped all the excitement out of an already stale spectacle.
I don't think anyone is saying they want to watch people die, but an element of risk, real or perceived, absolutely increases the spectacle. If people perceive the endeavour to be too safe or too easy then in many people's eyes it loses a lot of the appeal of watching. Would so many people have watched Charles Blondin's 1100ft tightrope walk if he'd done it 2ft off the ground rather than across Niagara Falls?
There needs to be a balance whereby people might still think 'that's too dangerous or difficult for me to attempt', but where the actual chances or death or serious injury are as small as possible.
There needs to be a balance whereby people might still think 'that's too dangerous or difficult for me to attempt', but where the actual chances or death or serious injury are as small as possible.
thegreenhell said:
I don't think anyone is saying they want to watch people die, but an element of risk, real or perceived, absolutely increases the spectacle. If people perceive the endeavour to be too safe or too easy then in many people's eyes it loses a lot of the appeal of watching. Would so many people have watched Charles Blondin's 1100ft tightrope walk if he'd done it 2ft off the ground rather than across Niagara Falls?
There needs to be a balance whereby people might still think 'that's too dangerous or difficult for me to attempt', but where the actual chances or death or serious injury are as small as possible.
Does personal injury have to be part of the risk? Nobody is trying to stop people from driving racing cars, in fact they are trying to make them quicker from next year. People will continue to crash cars, that's inevitable. Will spectators be disappointed that the drivers walk away? I doubt it. There needs to be a balance whereby people might still think 'that's too dangerous or difficult for me to attempt', but where the actual chances or death or serious injury are as small as possible.
Having a spectacular crash will always hurt, it will always compromise your weekend and most spectators will wince and think 'rather them than me.' You dont need to risk life and limb to make it compelling to watch.
I'm not so sure. Does the element of POTENTIAL danger not make the experience more exciting?
And where do all you folk stand on motor cycle road racing?
I find it absolutely thrilling to watch and am so glad that it is getting decent coverage on TV. And for the first time in a generation some of the great road racers of today are becoming household names.
The fact that these guys DO put their necks on the line is what me admire them so much - even though I wouldn't do what they do in a million years.
And where do all you folk stand on motor cycle road racing?
I find it absolutely thrilling to watch and am so glad that it is getting decent coverage on TV. And for the first time in a generation some of the great road racers of today are becoming household names.
The fact that these guys DO put their necks on the line is what me admire them so much - even though I wouldn't do what they do in a million years.
If they want to make drivers totally safe they could stipulate - wider cockpits, longer front impact, higher roll over protection, completely closed cockpits, only run on tracks with car park levels of run off, no running in rain.
How far do you go?
How far do you remove the essence of F1 cars/racing?
I don't think things should be made more dangerous and I certainly don't want to see pointless deaths or serious injury, but I want to see a spectacle which is exciting and there are sportsmen and teams pushing the limits.
I think the risks have to be managed in sensible ways. Currently, I think the safety is exceptional and well balanced against the risks. If you are going to introduce extra measures for head protection then the only way you can do that is a totally enclosed cockpit and not some halfway house. It's either done properly or not.
These are well paid, professional sportsmen, participating in a sport which they know the risks.
Have things been dumbed down too much already? It does annoy me now when racing is halted so quickly with rain. In F1, but especially Le Mans when they have the safety cars out for hours sometimes. It is endurance racing, adapt to the conditions presented. Get the cars in, get more down force on, suitable tyres, slow down, systems for quick ride height changes. This is the race, these are the conditions, get on with it! If you don't adapt and take a chance then you accept the risks of not doing so.
The threat and risk has to be viewed objectively. In balance I think F1 has it right and could even be a bit less nannying.
Motorbike racing has been mentioned earlier. Take the TT, if you look at the threat and risk to riders and spectators, the event should be banned immediately. The risk is huge to riders and the attitude to spectator safety is woeful bordering disgraceful.
How far do you go?
How far do you remove the essence of F1 cars/racing?
I don't think things should be made more dangerous and I certainly don't want to see pointless deaths or serious injury, but I want to see a spectacle which is exciting and there are sportsmen and teams pushing the limits.
I think the risks have to be managed in sensible ways. Currently, I think the safety is exceptional and well balanced against the risks. If you are going to introduce extra measures for head protection then the only way you can do that is a totally enclosed cockpit and not some halfway house. It's either done properly or not.
These are well paid, professional sportsmen, participating in a sport which they know the risks.
Have things been dumbed down too much already? It does annoy me now when racing is halted so quickly with rain. In F1, but especially Le Mans when they have the safety cars out for hours sometimes. It is endurance racing, adapt to the conditions presented. Get the cars in, get more down force on, suitable tyres, slow down, systems for quick ride height changes. This is the race, these are the conditions, get on with it! If you don't adapt and take a chance then you accept the risks of not doing so.
The threat and risk has to be viewed objectively. In balance I think F1 has it right and could even be a bit less nannying.
Motorbike racing has been mentioned earlier. Take the TT, if you look at the threat and risk to riders and spectators, the event should be banned immediately. The risk is huge to riders and the attitude to spectator safety is woeful bordering disgraceful.
so...
from the detractors in this thread we can deduce, that we don't like the 'halo' because...
a: it won't work ...because you know more than the proponents/ engineers who designed it & ran, no doubt countless simulations & tests on it
b: F1 SHOULD be 'risky' ...which is easy to say, from your comfy chair & keyboard
c: it looks s
t
really? is that it?
from the detractors in this thread we can deduce, that we don't like the 'halo' because...
a: it won't work ...because you know more than the proponents/ engineers who designed it & ran, no doubt countless simulations & tests on it
b: F1 SHOULD be 'risky' ...which is easy to say, from your comfy chair & keyboard
c: it looks s
treally? is that it?
rscott said:
Eric Mc said:
All valid points as far as I am concerned.
So you think that despite the fact that Mercedes spent time and resources designing, manufacturing and testing a proof of concept of this, you still know better than them as to whether it'll work or not.Don't put words in my mouth.
However, F1 is an experimental arena. Not all technologies developed in F1 work the way they have been predicted to.
Nothing would have prevented bianchi's death his helmet was struck at '248g' according to the fia. He was as good as deceased the second he lost control, the issue is should the tractor have been there, and are three car tyres with Armco behind safe enough in a country with variable weather.
I think you guys are missing the point here despite the fact that it's now been put several times by various people.
It doesn't matter how safe, how cosy, how nice, how efficient F1 is, or becomes. If I don't like it, I won't watch it, regardless of whether the reasons why are eminently intelligent or utterly stupid.
And you can't argue with that.
It doesn't matter how safe, how cosy, how nice, how efficient F1 is, or becomes. If I don't like it, I won't watch it, regardless of whether the reasons why are eminently intelligent or utterly stupid.
And you can't argue with that.
markcoznottz said:
Nothing would have prevented bianchi's death his helmet was struck at '248g' according to the fia. He was as good as deceased the second he lost control, the issue is should the tractor have been there, and are three car tyres with Armco behind safe enough in a country with variable weather.
While I don't argue that nothing would have prevented Bianchi's death I can answer your question.Should the tractor have been there? Yes. The race was under double waved yellow flags, instructing drivers to "slow down and be prepared to stop". Unfortunetly for years the stewards had permitted drivers to abuse this as "don't go faster than you did last lap".
What if the tractor hadn't been exactly there but a couple of marshals had been, would Bianchi have been able to stop? No, we'd have a couple of very dead marshals instead.
Eric Mc said:
rscott said:
Eric Mc said:
All valid points as far as I am concerned.
So you think that despite the fact that Mercedes spent time and resources designing, manufacturing and testing a proof of concept of this, you still know better than them as to whether it'll work or not.Don't put words in my mouth.
However, F1 is an experimental arena. Not all technologies developed in F1 work the way they have been predicted to.
Most posters on here don't seem to have a basic engineering knowledge, let alone the ability to contradict the guys designing these cars.
As for watching because of the element of danger, I thought that attitude died with the Romans. Sad to see it's still alive and well.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff