So they are going with Halo devices then
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
And boo again.
A hideous contraption that will yield no significant benefits and may even create new peroblems.
Read Nigel Roebuck's column on the most recent edition of Motorsport. As always, his words of wisdom are worth reading.
Why are you so certain of there being no significant benefits?A hideous contraption that will yield no significant benefits and may even create new peroblems.
Read Nigel Roebuck's column on the most recent edition of Motorsport. As always, his words of wisdom are worth reading.
Eric Mc said:
Tell me, in what accident in Formula 1 in recent years in which a driver was seriously injured, a Halo would have made a difference?
I'm not making any claims about the halo, so it's not really for me to argue how it would work. That said, I agree with the above comments about the accidents where a halo might have made a difference.You did make claims however, and so I thought you might have some basis for saying that there would be no significant benefits. Even if correct, your implication that there have in Formula One in recent years been no accidents where a halo would have made a difference seems an odd way of supporting you claim.
Henry Surtees' death is a good demonstration that exactly the sort of accident against which the halo has been shown to protect can and does occur in open cockpit racing. Nothing, as far as I can see, turns on the fact that it happened to occur in another formula.
Anyway, you earlier protested against safety changes being made in reaction to particular accidents. So why do you now protest that this change has not been closely preceded by a particular accident? Which way should it be? Do you disagree with the argument made in the column you cited by Nigel Roebuck that the use of heavy tractor units should not be allowed? Because before Bianchi's crash, you could easily have responded, "Tell me, in what accident in Formula 1 in recent years in which a driver was seriously injured, not having heavy tractor units would have made a difference?"
I'm not, by the way, arguing that the halo should or should not be adopted. I agree that it's ugly. But I don't think they would be ineffective.
You do realise Henry Surtees was not driving an F1 car?
And, if the Halo is so important to F1 - will we see it on every single open wheel race car?
And if not, why not?
I think the whole thing is a con and a reaction by a governing body that lost its way years ago and only now does things because it feels it has e seen to be doing something. In other words, it's reacting in a political way rather than an appropriate way.
And, if the Halo is so important to F1 - will we see it on every single open wheel race car?
And if not, why not?
I think the whole thing is a con and a reaction by a governing body that lost its way years ago and only now does things because it feels it has e seen to be doing something. In other words, it's reacting in a political way rather than an appropriate way.
Eric Mc said:
You do realise Henry Surtees was not driving an F1 car?
I don't much like the halo myself but that's pretty poor argument, Surtees was driving a single seater and was struck on the head by part of a competitor's car, an incident which could easily be repeated in F1. You're going to suggest it's impossible because of wheel teathers but cast your mind back to Spa several years ago where Grosjean's car flew over Alonso's at Le Source, narrowly missing his head.Eric Mc said:
You do realise Henry Surtees was not driving an F1 car?
Yes, I thought that was implicitly acknowledged in my comment that it happened in another formula. But I am not sure that the difference in the cars makes to the question of whether the halo might be effective in preventing an injury in F1, which is what we are discussing.Eric Mc said:
And, if the Halo is so important to F1 - will we see it on every single open wheel race car?
And if not, why not?
I didn't say how important the halo is to F1. I don't have a strong opinion on that.And if not, why not?
I doubt it will be seen on every open wheel race car, for all sorts of reasons besides its effectiveness in preventing injuries.
Eric Mc said:
I think the whole thing is a con and a reaction by a governing body that lost its way years ago and only now does things because it feels it has e seen to be doing something. In other words, it's reacting in a political way rather than an appropriate way.
I am not questioning any of that (nor am I agreeing with it). What I did question is your claim that the halo would "yield no significant benefits". Why do you say that?Edited by SamHH on Saturday 11th June 11:15
HustleRussell said:
Massa
De Villota
Bianchi
How much of a difference, better or worse, we'll never know- but it would've certainly 'made a difference'.
I don't agree on any of those.De Villota
Bianchi
How much of a difference, better or worse, we'll never know- but it would've certainly 'made a difference'.
Massa's injury was caused by a relatively small heave spring that would not have been stopped by the halo, it would have gone straight through the gap, even if it hit part of the halo its likely it would have still gone through the gap unless you were very lucky.
De Villota hit the end of a tailgate of a truck, that would have sliced through a halo and gone through most of it in the gap based on the angle of the tailgate.
Bianchi impact was far too fast into a solid object to have not caused serious head injuries even with a halo.
The Halo looks like a very marginal improvement, the most likely thing it will protect against is a wheel.
What they did to help prevent the above was to make changes that stand a chance of stopping the same thing happening again. Massa's accident led to safer helmets and visor structures. De Villota's accident improved the rules regarding safety at none FIA venues for F1 teams and Bianchi's crash has led to the introduction of the Virtual Safety Car.
Eric Mc said:
Because no significant increase in safety has been demonstrated by this device.
Do you not think it will protect against drivers being hit by other cars, or by large parts like wheels?Eric Mc said:
In the end this push for "safe proofing" F1 from any form of potential danger will result in no F1 at all. After all, we can make motor sport 100% safe by just not doing it.
We're not debating stopping motor sport, so there is no need to be concerned about that. It is an irrelevant consideration.So the RB designed aeroscreen failed FIA's most recent tests - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124729... .
And they've announced the halo will be a common part made out of titanium by a third party to a standard design - seems a vaguely sensible idea.
And they've announced the halo will be a common part made out of titanium by a third party to a standard design - seems a vaguely sensible idea.
Apparently Indycar are looking to introduce something next year - but they're looking towards the Red Bull solution.
Did anyone see the Josef Newgarden accident yesterday? I happened to switch over during the F1. Pretty scary - head potentially exposed to the barrier and track. The roll hoop actually failed - in this accident how would a canopy have worked? Would it have taken load away from the roll over or deformed and caused an additional problem?
Did anyone see the Josef Newgarden accident yesterday? I happened to switch over during the F1. Pretty scary - head potentially exposed to the barrier and track. The roll hoop actually failed - in this accident how would a canopy have worked? Would it have taken load away from the roll over or deformed and caused an additional problem?
Edited by coanda_2013 on Monday 13th June 10:00
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
I never said people are "walking away" from motor racing because it's too safe. However, there are many who will never even contemplate motor racing because they will be getting their thrills elsewhere. The choice of risky things to do is a lot greater than what it was in earlier times.And there's always motorcycle road racing
skwdenyer said:
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. 
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-bull-ready-t...
Motorsport.com said:
Red Bull ready to block Halo 2017 introduction
The FIA is set to face a choice of forcing through the introduction of the Halo into Formula 1 in 2017 on safety grounds or delaying it for another year, after Red Bull made clear it is not ready to support its introduction.
Motor racing's governing body is happy that the Halo is now 'technically ready' to be fitted to cars in 2017, following recent track testing of the latest version of the system.
The overall design has been tweaked – to make it less bulky and ensure that there was no risk of a driver's head hitting the structure in the event of a crash – and a plan is in place to make the structure of lighter titanium.
The new 'Halo 2' also successfully went through extraction tests at the Austrian and British Grands Prix – with Silverstone also having it fitted to a dummy chassis to help medical crews better understand how to work with it.
But despite the safety green light from the FIA, the issues remains a political hotbed – with teams not completely won over by the implications of its introduction in 2017.
Red Bull is open that it feels the Halo is not yet good enough to be voted in for next year, and will stand against it if teams are given the choice.
This comes despite it running a version of it on one of its cars at the Silverstone test on Tuesday.
Vettel concerns
Ferrari's Sebastian Vettel expressed some reservations about visibility following the installation lap he completed with it at Silverstone on Friday.
"You lose quite a bit [of visibility] on top of you,” he said. “You're not looking in the sky all the time when you go around, but I think it needs some further running. I know the decision is up fairly soon. I don't know what the results are on the actual research...
“I think it's clear what it's made for and it's clear what it's supposed to do, we just need to make sure we introduce something that is safer in all circumstances, and we don't make any compromises.
"I think you will always have certain scenarios that you can't cover, but you try to cover as many as possible, so that has to be the target."
It had previously been thought likely that the final approval to modify the regulations for introducing the Halo would go through the normal legislative channels – which are the Strategy Group and F1 Commission.
Due to the timeframe of it coming into force for 2017, such changes to the rules would require unanimous support - so one team standing along and rejecting it would be enough to stop it.
It is understood the next Strategy Group meeting is due to take place ahead of the German Grand Prix.
Red Bull not keen
Amid fresh concerns about potential downsides to the Halo – and whether or not it would be better to wait – Red Bull boss Christian Horner has stated that he would vote against it at the moment.
“Personally I am not a big fan of the Halo,” he said when asked by Motorsport.com. “I think it is an inelegant solution to the problem it is trying to deal with.
“I would prefer there to be more research time taken to do the job properly rather than rushing something through that may have other consequences. I am not a big fan of the Halo and the limitations that it has.”
He added: “I certainly wouldn't vote in favour at the moment.”
Red Bull's stance would be enough to block the Halo from introduction in 2017 unless the FIA wished to stand firm and force it through on safety grounds.
Article 2.2 of F1's 2017 Technical Regulations makes it clear that changes to the rules for next year can only be made with unanimous support of teams or on safety grounds.
It states: “These Technical Regulations may only be changed after 30 April 2016 with the unanimous agreement of all competitors entered in the 2017 Championship, save for changes made by the FIA for safety reasons which may come into effect without notice or delay.”
It means the FIA would face a choice of triggering the 'safety' clause or deciding to wait until 2018 when it would only need majority support.
The FIA is set to face a choice of forcing through the introduction of the Halo into Formula 1 in 2017 on safety grounds or delaying it for another year, after Red Bull made clear it is not ready to support its introduction.
Motor racing's governing body is happy that the Halo is now 'technically ready' to be fitted to cars in 2017, following recent track testing of the latest version of the system.
The overall design has been tweaked – to make it less bulky and ensure that there was no risk of a driver's head hitting the structure in the event of a crash – and a plan is in place to make the structure of lighter titanium.
The new 'Halo 2' also successfully went through extraction tests at the Austrian and British Grands Prix – with Silverstone also having it fitted to a dummy chassis to help medical crews better understand how to work with it.
But despite the safety green light from the FIA, the issues remains a political hotbed – with teams not completely won over by the implications of its introduction in 2017.
Red Bull is open that it feels the Halo is not yet good enough to be voted in for next year, and will stand against it if teams are given the choice.
This comes despite it running a version of it on one of its cars at the Silverstone test on Tuesday.
Vettel concerns
Ferrari's Sebastian Vettel expressed some reservations about visibility following the installation lap he completed with it at Silverstone on Friday.
"You lose quite a bit [of visibility] on top of you,” he said. “You're not looking in the sky all the time when you go around, but I think it needs some further running. I know the decision is up fairly soon. I don't know what the results are on the actual research...
“I think it's clear what it's made for and it's clear what it's supposed to do, we just need to make sure we introduce something that is safer in all circumstances, and we don't make any compromises.
"I think you will always have certain scenarios that you can't cover, but you try to cover as many as possible, so that has to be the target."
It had previously been thought likely that the final approval to modify the regulations for introducing the Halo would go through the normal legislative channels – which are the Strategy Group and F1 Commission.
Due to the timeframe of it coming into force for 2017, such changes to the rules would require unanimous support - so one team standing along and rejecting it would be enough to stop it.
It is understood the next Strategy Group meeting is due to take place ahead of the German Grand Prix.
Red Bull not keen
Amid fresh concerns about potential downsides to the Halo – and whether or not it would be better to wait – Red Bull boss Christian Horner has stated that he would vote against it at the moment.
“Personally I am not a big fan of the Halo,” he said when asked by Motorsport.com. “I think it is an inelegant solution to the problem it is trying to deal with.
“I would prefer there to be more research time taken to do the job properly rather than rushing something through that may have other consequences. I am not a big fan of the Halo and the limitations that it has.”
He added: “I certainly wouldn't vote in favour at the moment.”
Red Bull's stance would be enough to block the Halo from introduction in 2017 unless the FIA wished to stand firm and force it through on safety grounds.
Article 2.2 of F1's 2017 Technical Regulations makes it clear that changes to the rules for next year can only be made with unanimous support of teams or on safety grounds.
It states: “These Technical Regulations may only be changed after 30 April 2016 with the unanimous agreement of all competitors entered in the 2017 Championship, save for changes made by the FIA for safety reasons which may come into effect without notice or delay.”
It means the FIA would face a choice of triggering the 'safety' clause or deciding to wait until 2018 when it would only need majority support.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff