New HALO system tested

New HALO system tested

Author
Discussion

HustleRussell

24,602 posts

159 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
I have to say I'll be a bit sad to see a grid full of HALO or RB Aeroscreen equipped cars line up on a starting grid. I feel as though this change has been railroaded through without sufficient consultation, particularly from the fans and the drivers- many of whom don't believe in it or feel that it should be optional.

I hoped RB's solution would afford a better view of the driver but now it's been on track and photographed, it- rather predictably- replaces the view of the driver with a reflection of the sky. I notice that the photo RB uploaded to social media of it was the only photo of hundreds which afforded a clear view of Daniel Riccardo. It must've been taken in particularly favourable light conditions.

Once again the bumhats running the sport are introducing superficial change for change's sake while ignoring elephants in the room.

angrymoby

2,605 posts

177 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
HustleRussell said:
I feel as though this change has been railroaded through without sufficient consultation, particularly from the fans and the drivers- many of whom don't believe in it or feel that it should be optional.
really? you want input from fans concerning Driver safety issues? wow

HustleRussell

24,602 posts

159 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
angrymoby said:
HustleRussell said:
I feel as though this change has been railroaded through without sufficient consultation, particularly from the fans and the drivers- many of whom don't believe in it or feel that it should be optional.
really? you want input from fans concerning Driver safety issues? wow
My issue with it is that F1 is historically an open cockpit formula and part of the draw is that you as a spectator can see the driver working.

In my view both of the tested solutions compromise this a lot. I don't think I'm alone.

It could even be said that with the adoption of these devices the formula may as well go closed cockpit.

A number of drivers, too, have voiced their opinion that they didn't want it in spite of it's safety benefits.

F1 is a dictatorship, we all know it is- however I don't recall a period in F1 where so many changes, especially ill-conceived knee-jerk type changes, have been forced upon it.

allegerita

253 posts

196 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
Formula 1, or any formula class for that matter, should be based on a set of rules and design boundaries only. In case rules for additional safety are desired, there should be a phrase like “the driver shall be protected from the impact of flying debris”. An objective test defining test conditions and test object weight, impact speed and angle of attack to mimic the kinetic energy of debris will demonstrate compliance.

Or should the driver be protected from driving against (foreign) objects such as armco, trucks, excavators, etc? Or from flying upside down? Or a combination of these load cases? You see, it is important to define what the purpose of additional safety devices exactly is and I haven’t seen that yet.

Let the engineers do the job to come with the best solution based on objective, measurable rules. 10 engineers, 11 solutions. And maybe a device for Monaco would look different from something optimised for Spa or for a rain-soaked Suzuka.

As someone wrote earlier: F1 cars are death-ugly already. ANY add-ons will not further improve or worsen the looks. I don’t watch F1 for the aesthetics. Regardless whether it looks like a brick or a cigar If it goes faster than the previous year and complies with the rules I will enjoy watching.

24lemons

2,629 posts

184 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
HustleRussell said:
My issue with it is that F1 is historically an open cockpit formula and part of the draw is that you as a spectator can see the driver working.
Historically lots of people died or were seriously injured in F1. Many people have been saved by the improvements that have been made to the cars over the years. I'd like to think that most people view that as something to celebrate rather than feeling they would prefer to have had a bit more carnage in return for slightly prettier cars.

HustleRussell

24,602 posts

159 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
24Lemons, your interpretation is creative and I don't appreciate it.

TonyTwoTribes

356 posts

115 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
may as well stick a roof on it then. Better still to make sure no accidents and everyone is totally safe drive them by remote control. Hey you could do that from anywhere in the world. Another and probably final nail in what was once an exciting sport of heroes. Once these come in that's it done for me.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/624/cpsprodpb...

EnglishTony

2,552 posts

98 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
longshot said:
EnglishTony said:
Are there any other solutions besides the Halo or RB screen?

Neither seems wholly satisfactory.
Had 1/ wheel fell off.



24lemons

2,629 posts

184 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
HustleRussell said:
24Lemons, your interpretation is creative and I don't appreciate it.
Sorry I didn't mean to be so blunt. I get frustrated by arguments suggesting that this is somehow a kneejerk reaction to an imagined problem. It is a fact that open wheel drivers have been hurt and killed in recent years by avoidable head injuries. It isn't exclusively an F1 problem and the halo/screen are a reaction to those incidents.

The high profile cases in 2008 began the discussion and 8 years later we have the first working prototypes. Id hardly call that rushed through.

One of the key objections people voice about driver head protection is aesthetic impact and divergence from F1's roots. In my opinion F1 has always evolved and the current incarnation is a long way from its origins. With the aero shield the car will still be open cockpit for these who feel that is important, they effectively have a version of the windshields that were on some of the cars in the 1970s, so what's the problem?

The idea of doing nothing when there are still ways to improve safety is akin to accepting the casualties as a reasonable price for a Sunday's entertainment.

angrymoby

2,605 posts

177 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
What he said.

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Friday 29th April 2016
quotequote all
Whilst the FIA video of the F16 cockpit test was mega impressive you have to realise the amount of effort that is put into providing aircrew with environmental systems and cabin conditioning to allow them to operate under said canopy



.

Jonesy23

4,650 posts

135 months

Sunday 1st May 2016
quotequote all
Sylvaforever said:
Whilst the FIA video of the F16 cockpit test was mega impressive you have to realise the amount of effort that is put into providing aircrew with environmental systems and cabin conditioning to allow them to operate under said canopy



.
Other minor points are that a modern fast jet cockpit canopy is thick, heavy and requires systems to allow the pilot to be extracted in normal or emergency situations. And despite this they don't always work and it isn't unknown for a birdstrike or similar to penetrate or shatter them.

I can't see an F1 solution will take the full thick and heavy polycarb so will be at risk of failure under heavy impact. Given the whole point is to fix the rare instances of heavy impacts I have a feeling it might turn out to be a waste of time, and just think of the fallout when the safety system doesn't work.

Plus no one actually wants it because it makes other everyday things like visibilty (thrugh the plastic, past the structure or in misting conditions) and exiting the cockpit much more difficult so you're introducing real problems to cater for a rare possibility.


And if we're going closer to closed cockpits why not got the whole way and go closed wheel? Statistically that's more of an issue...

swisstoni

16,855 posts

278 months

Sunday 1st May 2016
quotequote all
As Brundle said on the telly yesterday, when you step over the side of an F1 car you are opting to take a risk. Nobody is forcing you to do it.

Having said that, if risk can be reduced without distorting the entire activity then I think it should be.

An F1 car at least has to retain the appearance of an open cockpit. They've already ruined the sound of F1 - if they ruin the look too, then the game is almost up.

Sir Snaz

571 posts

185 months

Tuesday 3rd May 2016
quotequote all
Isn't this the whole problem with F1 at the moment?

I totally understand that F1 is a technology/development driven sport, and I fully support keeping drivers as safe as possible.
However, taking almost all the danger away from the drivers kills the natural Human interest in the sport.
If you want to watch cutting edge technological advance with almost zero danger to the participants, you could hang out at CERN for a couple of days......no? ...yeah me neither.

The whole reason I loved F1 as a kid was that it was Men doing Manly things with the danger of death constantly on their shoulders.......I had no desire for them to hurt themselves, but the very spectre of it made the sport.....well a sport.

just my two cents .....

Cyder

7,045 posts

219 months

Tuesday 3rd May 2016
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
As Brundle said on the telly yesterday, when you step over the side of an F1 car you are opting to take a risk. Nobody is forcing you to do it.
I completely agree with this and also Lewis' views.

I can relate to the safety in motorsport issue, I'm a weekend rallyist and I am well aware of and fully accept the risks when I strap myself into a rally car and hurtle through the forests at fairly daft speeds with solid trees mere feet away from the car.
I can accept that despite the roll cage, seats, belts, HANS device etc if we hit a tree hard head on or sideways it's likely to be goodnight Vienna.

I think you have to reach a level of safety where you keep the ethos of the sport while mitigating the risk. To add Halo's and canopies in F1 I think is a fairly unnecessary step too far in the quest for safety.

amgmcqueen

3,343 posts

149 months

Tuesday 3rd May 2016
quotequote all
This ghastly looking 'safety' device should be optional for the driver's. It's as simple as that.

kambites

67,462 posts

220 months

Tuesday 3rd May 2016
quotequote all
amgmcqueen said:
This ghastly looking 'safety' device should be optional for the driver's. It's as simple as that.
If they're going to go down that route they'd have to make sure it has either no effect on performance or a positive one. The idea of saying to a drive "you can be safe or you can be competitive is probably not one the FIA would be willing to entertain.

Krikkit

26,500 posts

180 months

Tuesday 3rd May 2016
quotequote all
Sir Snaz said:
If you want to watch cutting edge technological advance with almost zero danger to the participants, you could hang out at CERN for a couple of days......no? ...yeah me neither.
CERN is potentially much more dangerous, but the risks are managed over everything else. Not something you can do in F1.

I'd love to spend a couple of days at CERN though, living the dream!

bakerstreet

4,755 posts

164 months

Tuesday 3rd May 2016
quotequote all
HustleRussell said:
My issue with it is that F1 is historically an open cockpit formula and part of the draw is that you as a spectator can see the driver working.
You can see nothing apart from a head turning from left to right. On occasion, you might get an arm wave. In car cameras might show a bit of arm twirling, but most of the time all you will see is head movement and not much of it.

If you want to see 'working', then MotoGP, WSB or BSB is where to look.

longshot

3,286 posts

197 months

Tuesday 3rd May 2016
quotequote all
I don't see who this device is going to save.

It wouldn't have helped Bianchi.
It would have helped Massa and it's questionable whether it would have saved Henry Surtees.

Unless I'm missing some other incidents, there seems no reason behind it.

Who originally suggested this idea?