So they are going with Halo devices then
Discussion
It's not been a "blood sport" for almost 40 years.
In the end, the path we are going will eventually see NO motor sport. The only way to guarantee 100% safety in F1 is to stop doing it. If you don't want 100% surety against fatalities, what percentage do you think is acceptable. It probably won't happen in my life time but F1 is the trend setter because it has the highest profile,. So, when F1 ends, the other classes of motor sport will surely follow.
You have all been warned.
In the end, the path we are going will eventually see NO motor sport. The only way to guarantee 100% safety in F1 is to stop doing it. If you don't want 100% surety against fatalities, what percentage do you think is acceptable. It probably won't happen in my life time but F1 is the trend setter because it has the highest profile,. So, when F1 ends, the other classes of motor sport will surely follow.
You have all been warned.
Eric Mc said:
It's not been a "blood sport" for almost 40 years.
In the end, the path we are going will eventually see NO motor sport. The only way to guarantee 100% safety in F1 is to stop doing it. If you don't want 100% surety against fatalities, what percentage do you think is acceptable. It probably won't happen in my life time but F1 is the trend setter because it has the highest profile,. So, when F1 ends, the other classes of motor sport will surely follow.
You have all been warned.
Eric, I can't see that.In the end, the path we are going will eventually see NO motor sport. The only way to guarantee 100% safety in F1 is to stop doing it. If you don't want 100% surety against fatalities, what percentage do you think is acceptable. It probably won't happen in my life time but F1 is the trend setter because it has the highest profile,. So, when F1 ends, the other classes of motor sport will surely follow.
You have all been warned.
None of the safety improvements of the last few years have reduced the speed or the spectacle of the cars (maybe the appearance a bit, thinking back to the funny 'wedge' noses of a few years ago). Look at Monaco qually - faster than ever.
No-one's asking for 100% safety. But what they are saying is that 99% safety is better than 98% safety.
Where does it stop?
Eventually nobody will want to watch it anymore - or even take part. How do you get these extremely small and marginal safety improvements. If it ever gets to 99% safety, there will still be people who say we must strive for 99.999% safety. It's self defeating
Motor sport is gradually being turned into a neutral thrill activity and those who want excitement or danger are turning to other activities.
Eventually nobody will want to watch it anymore - or even take part. How do you get these extremely small and marginal safety improvements. If it ever gets to 99% safety, there will still be people who say we must strive for 99.999% safety. It's self defeating
Motor sport is gradually being turned into a neutral thrill activity and those who want excitement or danger are turning to other activities.
Eric Mc said:
Where does it stop?
Eventually nobody will want to watch it anymore - or even take part. How do you get these extremely small and marginal safety improvements. If it ever gets to 99% safety, there will still be people who say we must strive for 99.999% safety. It's self defeating
Motor sport is gradually being turned into a neutral thrill activity and those who want excitement or danger are turning to other activities.
Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I can't see anyone trying to make F1 as sterile as you're making it out to be.Eventually nobody will want to watch it anymore - or even take part. How do you get these extremely small and marginal safety improvements. If it ever gets to 99% safety, there will still be people who say we must strive for 99.999% safety. It's self defeating
Motor sport is gradually being turned into a neutral thrill activity and those who want excitement or danger are turning to other activities.
Actually the saddest thing is the parents of a lost driver taking legal action. Perhaps the people I'd least expect that from.
Flooble said:
It will only deflect the largest items of debris which, by definition, would apply the least pressure to the helmet anyway. It's the sharp point on a knife that hurts, not the dull handle.
It may have saved Maria De Villota, but so would sensible safety measures around having sharp horizontal objects at driver head height. The aeroscreen would also likely have done the job in that case.
It probably would have saved Justin Wilson, although the nose cone of cars is quite pointy so may well still penetrate the gaps in the halo versus bouncing off the aeroscreen.
Henry Surtees incident is possibly the only one that the halo would have helped in and aeroscreen is likely to have been just as effective.
Well what you have just said is that it it would probably have helped in three of four serious situations. And how much the dull handle of a knife hurts depends entirely on how big it is and how hard it hits you!It may have saved Maria De Villota, but so would sensible safety measures around having sharp horizontal objects at driver head height. The aeroscreen would also likely have done the job in that case.
It probably would have saved Justin Wilson, although the nose cone of cars is quite pointy so may well still penetrate the gaps in the halo versus bouncing off the aeroscreen.
Henry Surtees incident is possibly the only one that the halo would have helped in and aeroscreen is likely to have been just as effective.
Saying it shouldn't be implemented because it wouldn't stop everything is a bit like saying cops shouldn't bother with a stab vest because it won't stop a bullet - ok, but it'll still prevent SOME things, so you may as well. Why give up on those three just because it wouldn't have saved the fourth (who oddly was the only one who didn't die - that's not to detract from your arguement, it's just ironic is all)
I know you think an aeroscreen is better and that is what you are saying. I agree broadly.
but if it isn't ready, it isn't ready. They are looking at it from 2018. And in the meantime they will use the admittedly strange looking solution that at least provides SOME protection.
oyster said:
Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I can't see anyone trying to make F1 as sterile as you're making it out to be.
Actually the saddest thing is the parents of a lost driver taking legal action. Perhaps the people I'd least expect that from.
It's a sign of the times and, if they do win their claim, we will see further reticence about wanting to run such events. We are becoming very, very cautious and wary as a society and perhaps it is now for others to take up the cudgels for risk and adventure.Actually the saddest thing is the parents of a lost driver taking legal action. Perhaps the people I'd least expect that from.
Vocal Minority said:
but if it isn't ready, it isn't ready. They are looking at it from 2018. And in the meantime they will use the admittedly strange looking solution that at least provides SOME protection.
Maybe. I won't be happy when a driver is actually seriously injured BY this device.Eric Mc said:
Where does it stop?
Eventually nobody will want to watch it anymore - or even take part. How do you get these extremely small and marginal safety improvements. If it ever gets to 99% safety, there will still be people who say we must strive for 99.999% safety. It's self defeating
Motor sport is gradually being turned into a neutral thrill activity and those who want excitement or danger are turning to other activities.
I agreeEventually nobody will want to watch it anymore - or even take part. How do you get these extremely small and marginal safety improvements. If it ever gets to 99% safety, there will still be people who say we must strive for 99.999% safety. It's self defeating
Motor sport is gradually being turned into a neutral thrill activity and those who want excitement or danger are turning to other activities.
It's open cockpit racing. If you are not prepared to accept the risk of getting in to an open cockpit and racing, race tin-tops or sportscars.
Anything that improves safety should not compromise the sport itself. Seatbelts don't compromise the sport, HANS devices don't either. Canopies/Halos do.
Take bike racing - statistically a more dangerous sport than F1 - if they said the bikes had to have fairings to cover the rider for protection, would it still be bike racing? No.
Today, 2 riders died at the TT, others were injured. This happens at every TT meeting. It is accepted that the nature of the sport of racing motorbikes on public roads is bl**dy dangerous. Even spectators who are injured routinely say "I wouldn't change it."
By comparison, F1 racing is incredibly safe. Nobody is forced to race (at all). Nobody is forced to race in F1 (they can pursue a career in another formula, even if by chance their skillset could not possibly include earning a living doing anything else). Terrific lengths are taken to make the sport as safe as reasonably feasible.
IMHO, putting a structure in the drivers' eyeline is not a safety improvement - it is a rebalancing of compromises. It is also not open cockpit racing.
I believe that the sport should continue to do whatever is reasonably feasible to increse the safety *of the current formula* - carbon monocoques, deformable nosecones, HANS devices, rollover hoops, side impact structures - these and many other changes have improved safety beyond all recognition. But this "thing" is a step too far IMHO.
By comparison, F1 racing is incredibly safe. Nobody is forced to race (at all). Nobody is forced to race in F1 (they can pursue a career in another formula, even if by chance their skillset could not possibly include earning a living doing anything else). Terrific lengths are taken to make the sport as safe as reasonably feasible.
IMHO, putting a structure in the drivers' eyeline is not a safety improvement - it is a rebalancing of compromises. It is also not open cockpit racing.
I believe that the sport should continue to do whatever is reasonably feasible to increse the safety *of the current formula* - carbon monocoques, deformable nosecones, HANS devices, rollover hoops, side impact structures - these and many other changes have improved safety beyond all recognition. But this "thing" is a step too far IMHO.
skwdenyer said:
Today, 2 riders died at the TT, others were injured. This happens at every TT meeting. It is accepted that the nature of the sport of racing motorbikes on public roads is bl**dy dangerous. Even spectators who are injured routinely say "I wouldn't change it."
By comparison, F1 racing is incredibly safe. Nobody is forced to race (at all). Nobody is forced to race in F1 (they can pursue a career in another formula, even if by chance their skillset could not possibly include earning a living doing anything else). Terrific lengths are taken to make the sport as safe as reasonably feasible.
IMHO, putting a structure in the drivers' eyeline is not a safety improvement - it is a rebalancing of compromises. It is also not open cockpit racing.
I believe that the sport should continue to do whatever is reasonably feasible to increse the safety *of the current formula* - carbon monocoques, deformable nosecones, HANS devices, rollover hoops, side impact structures - these and many other changes have improved safety beyond all recognition. But this "thing" is a step too far IMHO.
I agree. The levels of safety are so high you have to accept that risks are minimised to an acceptable standard. More can always be done, but this halo is too far. It's a compromised answer to very rare cases. If you think risks are that high for the cockpit, the answer is to enclose it fully. By comparison, F1 racing is incredibly safe. Nobody is forced to race (at all). Nobody is forced to race in F1 (they can pursue a career in another formula, even if by chance their skillset could not possibly include earning a living doing anything else). Terrific lengths are taken to make the sport as safe as reasonably feasible.
IMHO, putting a structure in the drivers' eyeline is not a safety improvement - it is a rebalancing of compromises. It is also not open cockpit racing.
I believe that the sport should continue to do whatever is reasonably feasible to increse the safety *of the current formula* - carbon monocoques, deformable nosecones, HANS devices, rollover hoops, side impact structures - these and many other changes have improved safety beyond all recognition. But this "thing" is a step too far IMHO.
No one wants to see drivers injured. It's not backwards rejecting calls for halo. It is just too far and does dilute the spectacle. If the risks are too great, stop the racing completely. There will always be risks, you can't remove all danger.
It is sad to hear about the TT. I know road courses can never be designed safe. If it goes wrong, you're hitting something hard and fast. However the attitude to spectator safety is pretty poor. The riders know the risks, but those watching shouldn't be so exposed. Yes, you have to protect the clowns who will sit in the danger zones. But death is viewed so casually at the event.
I think that somewhat misses the point. There is a huge amount of very mainstream sponsorship involved in F1; companies probably don't want to pay tens of millions to have their names associated with a sport which kills people (or at least which kills people then isn't seen to be doing anything about it).
It's got to be mostly a financial decision; as has been said there are plenty of more dangerous sports out there, both motor-racing and others.
It's got to be mostly a financial decision; as has been said there are plenty of more dangerous sports out there, both motor-racing and others.
kambites said:
I think that somewhat misses the point. There is a huge amount of very mainstream sponsorship involved in F1; companies probably don't want to pay tens of millions to have their names associated with a sport which kills people (or at least which kills people then isn't seen to be doing anything about it).
It's got to be mostly a financial decision; as has been said there are plenty of more dangerous sports out there, both motor-racing and others.
As was once said "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." Do we *know* that the brands in question want this, or are those who care about such things reacting merely to their *fear* of what those brands might do?It's got to be mostly a financial decision; as has been said there are plenty of more dangerous sports out there, both motor-racing and others.
Those brands have aligned themselves with a sport that has regularly killed people. Right now (IMHO of course) the balance is about right - drivers can have *enormous* offs without so much as a scratch, but there is always just that tinge of fear to keep the respect for their achievemts there. Think Alonso's recent cartwheel, for instance, or his crash in testing last year - these are people who do get very close to the edge, and (on a bad day with a metaphorical headwind) just about cheat death.
That, for me, is as it should be. If the drivers feel that they cannot die, they will probably do so (by trying too hard), whilst the conversely the spectators will lose interest (no fear). Nobody will win.
If there truly was a will to dramatically improve safety and reduce the chances of "big ones" then FFS cover the wheels - the number of flying accidents caused by those open wheels is enormous.
skwdenyer said:
If there truly was a will to dramatically improve safety and reduce the chances of "big ones" then FFS cover the wheels - the number of flying accidents caused by those open wheels is enormous.
They do seem to have finally got the wheel tethers working recently. I might be forgetting a few but the only times I can remember seeing wheels flying loose in the last few years is when the nuts have come undone. 
That does look good doesnt it.
To be honest we have to go driverless cars. It's the future, let's face it. Motorsport is just too dangerous and has been for some time, since its inception really. We must continually strive to reduce all risks to a minimum in life. It simply cannot be accepted that life ends in death and mostly unexspectedly too. The reaper must not be allowed to win.
The f1 driver of the future will sit in a VR console and control his car out on track. Nice and safe for all involved.
To be honest we have to go driverless cars. It's the future, let's face it. Motorsport is just too dangerous and has been for some time, since its inception really. We must continually strive to reduce all risks to a minimum in life. It simply cannot be accepted that life ends in death and mostly unexspectedly too. The reaper must not be allowed to win.
The f1 driver of the future will sit in a VR console and control his car out on track. Nice and safe for all involved.
Soul Reaver said:
That does look good doesnt it.
To be honest we have to go driverless cars. It's the future, let's face it. Motorsport is just too dangerous and has been for some time, since its inception really. We must continually strive to reduce all risks to a minimum in life. It simply cannot be accepted that life ends in death and mostly unexspectedly too. The reaper must not be allowed to win.
The f1 driver of the future will sit in a VR console and control his car out on track. Nice and safe for all involved.
I bet you that 90% millennials would agree with your post. The world is a fluffy place where everyone is entitled to everything, 100% risk free environment (aka safe space) is number priority on today's world agenda. Where are the lawyers, we need them to help enforce this utopia (CHI CHING!)?To be honest we have to go driverless cars. It's the future, let's face it. Motorsport is just too dangerous and has been for some time, since its inception really. We must continually strive to reduce all risks to a minimum in life. It simply cannot be accepted that life ends in death and mostly unexspectedly too. The reaper must not be allowed to win.
The f1 driver of the future will sit in a VR console and control his car out on track. Nice and safe for all involved.
Soul Reaver said:
That does look good doesnt it.
To be honest we have to go driverless cars. It's the future, let's face it. Motorsport is just too dangerous and has been for some time, since its inception really. We must continually strive to reduce all risks to a minimum in life. It simply cannot be accepted that life ends in death and mostly unexspectedly too. The reaper must not be allowed to win.
The f1 driver of the future will sit in a VR console and control his car out on track. Nice and safe for all involved.
I agree remote control will of course be safer.To be honest we have to go driverless cars. It's the future, let's face it. Motorsport is just too dangerous and has been for some time, since its inception really. We must continually strive to reduce all risks to a minimum in life. It simply cannot be accepted that life ends in death and mostly unexspectedly too. The reaper must not be allowed to win.
The f1 driver of the future will sit in a VR console and control his car out on track. Nice and safe for all involved.
So if you look around this concept is massively unpopular. Yet these same people preach that we've got to make F1 safer so halos and closed cockpits are a good idea.
I don't think halo/visor/closed cockpit makes F1 any safer, we have no proof - opinions yes, but no proof.
Is F1 losing part of its identity ? absolutely.
We will have to wait until it becomes official, but it seems that they are not going with the Ferrari design, but the Mercedes one, which hasn't been tested on a car yet, nor crash tested with the FIA's "fire a wheel in a straight line" test.
Imposing that design now, only to throw it all away for visors in 2018 is nothing but a political gesture.
kambites said:
skwdenyer said:
If there truly was a will to dramatically improve safety and reduce the chances of "big ones" then FFS cover the wheels - the number of flying accidents caused by those open wheels is enormous.
They do seem to have finally got the wheel tethers working recently. I might be forgetting a few but the only times I can remember seeing wheels flying loose in the last few years is when the nuts have come undone. Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff