Proposed 'shield', halo alternative, unveiled
Discussion
More details here: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/128914...
Looks better than halo, but looks to me like it would distort the drivers view considerably. Apparently it's effective on small debris, less effective on things the size of wheels. Plus the problem of oil and rain smearing it over a two hour race is still there, I guess large tear offs like WEC could be used.
What do you guys think?
Well, 50 years ago there was the Protos F2 car than ran with a similar arrangement - but I think Frank Costin was thinking more about aero than safety...
Seriously though it seems a bit of a half-way house, don't think that it would be substantial enough to protect against Henry Surtees/Justin Wilson type accidents. On the assumption that aircraft canopies would never be considered in F1 I think it comes back to the halo...
Seriously though it seems a bit of a half-way house, don't think that it would be substantial enough to protect against Henry Surtees/Justin Wilson type accidents. On the assumption that aircraft canopies would never be considered in F1 I think it comes back to the halo...
This is typical of the flip flopping the FIA engage in.
First of all it was canopies, until they tested firing a wheel at it and found the wheel bounced high and far enough to easily land in a grandstand or even outside of the track at some places.
Then, it was halo - they will protect the driver from flying wheels they said. Only the testing fired a wheel in a straight line directly at the front of it. Anyone even seen an errant wheel do that ? they usually rotate, spin, flip - anything but fly in a straight line.
Nevertheless, they get mandated for 2017 season as a "must have" tohelp the FIA not get sued by the Bianchi family save driver lives. When its pointed out that more research, testing and development is needed this is delayed to the 2018 season. During this time any driver who suggested they'd rather not have halo was quietly silenced.
Now, apparently flying wheels aren't a problem, wheel tethers are good enough - whereas they weren't when halo was their favourite idea.
So, what exactly are we trying to achieve ? it seems to me, no-one really knows.
Unorgainsed, Dysfunctional, Directionless.
FOM, teams and whoever else need to wrestle control of the issue away from the FIA and give it to Brawn to work on in his usual, logical manner.
Personally I don't really see the need. Open cockpit racing is just that, not half closed or a bit covered up. If you want to watch or race enclosed cars the LMP series are enclosed as well as various other endurance series.
No-one wants to see drivers injured or killed, but by the same token no-one forces the drivers in to the cars - they want to do it and its not as if we're losing drivers every week like "the good old days". F1 and open cockpit racing is relatively safe nowadays thanks to the efforts of many people - lets continue that work without fundamentally altering the sport.
First of all it was canopies, until they tested firing a wheel at it and found the wheel bounced high and far enough to easily land in a grandstand or even outside of the track at some places.
Then, it was halo - they will protect the driver from flying wheels they said. Only the testing fired a wheel in a straight line directly at the front of it. Anyone even seen an errant wheel do that ? they usually rotate, spin, flip - anything but fly in a straight line.
Nevertheless, they get mandated for 2017 season as a "must have" to
Now, apparently flying wheels aren't a problem, wheel tethers are good enough - whereas they weren't when halo was their favourite idea.
So, what exactly are we trying to achieve ? it seems to me, no-one really knows.
Unorgainsed, Dysfunctional, Directionless.
FOM, teams and whoever else need to wrestle control of the issue away from the FIA and give it to Brawn to work on in his usual, logical manner.
Personally I don't really see the need. Open cockpit racing is just that, not half closed or a bit covered up. If you want to watch or race enclosed cars the LMP series are enclosed as well as various other endurance series.
No-one wants to see drivers injured or killed, but by the same token no-one forces the drivers in to the cars - they want to do it and its not as if we're losing drivers every week like "the good old days". F1 and open cockpit racing is relatively safe nowadays thanks to the efforts of many people - lets continue that work without fundamentally altering the sport.
Crafty_ said:
This is typical of the flip flopping the FIA engage in.
First of all it was canopies, until they tested firing a wheel at it and found the wheel bounced high and far enough to easily land in a grandstand or even outside of the track at some places.
Then, it was halo - they will protect the driver from flying wheels they said. Only the testing fired a wheel in a straight line directly at the front of it. Anyone even seen an errant wheel do that ? they usually rotate, spin, flip - anything but fly in a straight line.
Nevertheless, they get mandated for 2017 season as a "must have" tohelp the FIA not get sued by the Bianchi family save driver lives. When its pointed out that more research, testing and development is needed this is delayed to the 2018 season. During this time any driver who suggested they'd rather not have halo was quietly silenced.
Now, apparently flying wheels aren't a problem, wheel tethers are good enough - whereas they weren't when halo was their favourite idea.
So, what exactly are we trying to achieve ? it seems to me, no-one really knows.
Unorgainsed, Dysfunctional, Directionless.
FOM, teams and whoever else need to wrestle control of the issue away from the FIA and give it to Brawn to work on in his usual, logical manner.
Personally I don't really see the need. Open cockpit racing is just that, not half closed or a bit covered up. If you want to watch or race enclosed cars the LMP series are enclosed as well as various other endurance series.
No-one wants to see drivers injured or killed, but by the same token no-one forces the drivers in to the cars - they want to do it and its not as if we're losing drivers every week like "the good old days". F1 and open cockpit racing is relatively safe nowadays thanks to the efforts of many people - lets continue that work without fundamentally altering the sport.
The irony is that none of these devices would have saved Bianchi.First of all it was canopies, until they tested firing a wheel at it and found the wheel bounced high and far enough to easily land in a grandstand or even outside of the track at some places.
Then, it was halo - they will protect the driver from flying wheels they said. Only the testing fired a wheel in a straight line directly at the front of it. Anyone even seen an errant wheel do that ? they usually rotate, spin, flip - anything but fly in a straight line.
Nevertheless, they get mandated for 2017 season as a "must have" to
Now, apparently flying wheels aren't a problem, wheel tethers are good enough - whereas they weren't when halo was their favourite idea.
So, what exactly are we trying to achieve ? it seems to me, no-one really knows.
Unorgainsed, Dysfunctional, Directionless.
FOM, teams and whoever else need to wrestle control of the issue away from the FIA and give it to Brawn to work on in his usual, logical manner.
Personally I don't really see the need. Open cockpit racing is just that, not half closed or a bit covered up. If you want to watch or race enclosed cars the LMP series are enclosed as well as various other endurance series.
No-one wants to see drivers injured or killed, but by the same token no-one forces the drivers in to the cars - they want to do it and its not as if we're losing drivers every week like "the good old days". F1 and open cockpit racing is relatively safe nowadays thanks to the efforts of many people - lets continue that work without fundamentally altering the sport.
in fact I find the idea that Bianchis family want to sue someone as fairly distasteful!
Bianchi's accident was caused by the combination of having recovery vehicles trackside and Jules himself not slowing enough under yellow flags - this was clearly shown in the data. There were other factors - weather, the timing of the race etc.
imho the VSC goes a long way to solving that issue, simply because drivers cannot use excess speed under a VSC, because its immediately apparent. Their conduct under a yellow flag can't really be monitored/governed.
I agree with your sentiment about legal action, I don't really see what the family stands to gain, other than a pocketful of cash that still doesn't return their son - so are they mercenaries then ? I struggle with that question. Certainly, I think there are more productive ways to help to try and prevent it happening to another driver.
Its a little similar to the entire canopy/halo/whatever question. Those that advocate such a device tell us that we need to protect drivers because racing is too dangerous / risky. So why not have the driver control the car from a simulator sat in the pit garage then ? we certainly have the technology, it'd be completely safe (bar a driver tripping over his own feet in the garage..).
"But thats rubbish! it'd ruin the spectacle!" they cry. Well, yes - but what did you want ? no danger or a spectacle ?
So what we're saying now is we want some amount of risk and danger for our own enjoyment. Ok, but how much danger is acceptable ? race drivers (sadly) still die in fully enclosed cars, let alone an open one with some sort of metal cage around them or a bit of perspex in front of them. So where do we stop ? enclosed cars ? not safe enough. Wrap drivers in cotton wool ? take them out of the car completely ? How about bike racers ? horse jockeys ? speedboat racers ? there are any number of things we can do to stop deaths in sports.
No-one wanted Bianchi, Surtees, Wheldon or WIlson to die and I'm pretty sure none of them wanted to lose their lives. But, they were racing drivers who went racing - its what they did and hundreds (thousands?) of other people are doing every weekend. They knew the risks but they did it anyway, because thats how they are wired. When they don't want to take the risks they hang up their helmet, it really is that simple.
imho the VSC goes a long way to solving that issue, simply because drivers cannot use excess speed under a VSC, because its immediately apparent. Their conduct under a yellow flag can't really be monitored/governed.
I agree with your sentiment about legal action, I don't really see what the family stands to gain, other than a pocketful of cash that still doesn't return their son - so are they mercenaries then ? I struggle with that question. Certainly, I think there are more productive ways to help to try and prevent it happening to another driver.
Its a little similar to the entire canopy/halo/whatever question. Those that advocate such a device tell us that we need to protect drivers because racing is too dangerous / risky. So why not have the driver control the car from a simulator sat in the pit garage then ? we certainly have the technology, it'd be completely safe (bar a driver tripping over his own feet in the garage..).
"But thats rubbish! it'd ruin the spectacle!" they cry. Well, yes - but what did you want ? no danger or a spectacle ?
So what we're saying now is we want some amount of risk and danger for our own enjoyment. Ok, but how much danger is acceptable ? race drivers (sadly) still die in fully enclosed cars, let alone an open one with some sort of metal cage around them or a bit of perspex in front of them. So where do we stop ? enclosed cars ? not safe enough. Wrap drivers in cotton wool ? take them out of the car completely ? How about bike racers ? horse jockeys ? speedboat racers ? there are any number of things we can do to stop deaths in sports.
No-one wanted Bianchi, Surtees, Wheldon or WIlson to die and I'm pretty sure none of them wanted to lose their lives. But, they were racing drivers who went racing - its what they did and hundreds (thousands?) of other people are doing every weekend. They knew the risks but they did it anyway, because thats how they are wired. When they don't want to take the risks they hang up their helmet, it really is that simple.
moffspeed said:
Well, 50 years ago there was the Protos F2 car than ran with a similar arrangement - but I think Frank Costin was thinking more about aero than safety...
The Protos screen was purely for aerodynamics, being made from the usual thin 'perspex' of the day. Plus it had a "vision slot" in the middle.I don't see how that is going to help anything, there's nothing added around the cockpit and that visor is going to be a git to keep clean enough to see through even if there isn't any distortion when it is clean. My vote would still be for the Red Bull screen, it's protection around and above the drivers head, and the visor would protect against things like what happened to Massa.
What Crafty said.
The FIA don't seem to be sure about what they want to achieve. If they really were committed to removing the risk posed by a flying wheel entering the cockpit, this wouldn't even be on the table.
The halo looks bloody awful and poses serious questions about a driver getting out with the car upturned or on its side against a wall, like Alonso in Australia.
If they go full canopy, they would be protecting the drivers, but possibly exposing the crowd to more risk due to wheels potentially flying about, which would be unacceptable.
I personally think they should leave alone and let the drivers decide if they are prepared to drive and take the risk or not.
The FIA don't seem to be sure about what they want to achieve. If they really were committed to removing the risk posed by a flying wheel entering the cockpit, this wouldn't even be on the table.
The halo looks bloody awful and poses serious questions about a driver getting out with the car upturned or on its side against a wall, like Alonso in Australia.
If they go full canopy, they would be protecting the drivers, but possibly exposing the crowd to more risk due to wheels potentially flying about, which would be unacceptable.
I personally think they should leave alone and let the drivers decide if they are prepared to drive and take the risk or not.
jsf said:
You cant put a curved screen in front of a driver in a single seater, it completely distorts the view making the car impossible to drive properly. Anyone who has worked with a single seater knows this.
Yeah, 'cause LMP and aircraft don't have curved screens right in front of the driver!Weren't both Justin Wilson and Henry Surtees hit square on the head with a wheel and tyre, this aero screen wouldn't have helped them, the same with Bianchi and Maria de Villota, they both drove at speed into an object at head height, this aero screen wouldn't have made any great deal of difference, particularly with Bianchi.
I think it is a case of the FIA wanting to be seen to be doing something rather than saying "it's motor racing and it's dangerous" but don't really know what to do.
What if the aero screen is introduced, there is an accident where a tyre hits it and then it is deflected off into the driver of the car behind, injuring or killing him, yes it is unlikely and would be a million to one freak accident, but aren't all accidents, you can't protect against absolutely everything that may happen.
I think it is a case of the FIA wanting to be seen to be doing something rather than saying "it's motor racing and it's dangerous" but don't really know what to do.
What if the aero screen is introduced, there is an accident where a tyre hits it and then it is deflected off into the driver of the car behind, injuring or killing him, yes it is unlikely and would be a million to one freak accident, but aren't all accidents, you can't protect against absolutely everything that may happen.
I'm pretty sure such a system could have prevented the injuries to Maria de Villota because she crashed into the tail lift of a truck which would have been hinged - the screen/halo would only have had to deflect the weight of the tail lift (maybe 50kg?) not the whole truck. It's clearly a freak enough sort of accident that it's not really worth designing a safety system around it, though.
By the looks of it this screen would have meant the spring didn't hit Massa.
If it's strong enough to take the force, I'd imagine it would help with most wheel impacts; these seem to be less of an issue in F1 these days since they've actually got tethers working properly anyway.
By the looks of it this screen would have meant the spring didn't hit Massa.
If it's strong enough to take the force, I'd imagine it would help with most wheel impacts; these seem to be less of an issue in F1 these days since they've actually got tethers working properly anyway.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 13th April 08:14
Crafty_ said:
First of all it was canopies, until they tested firing a wheel at it and found the wheel bounced high and far enough to easily land in a grandstand or even outside of the track at some places.
Surely a wheel hitting any part of a car or driver at speed would deflect a similar amount? I cant imagine that the screen makes it worse in that respect. I remember reading about Tom Pryce's accident and the fire extinguisher that hit him in the face was sent flying over the grandstand. Crafty_ said:
Only the testing fired a wheel in a straight line directly at the front of it. Anyone even seen an errant wheel do that ? they usually rotate, spin, flip - anything but fly in a straight line.
I think the idea was to simulate a car hitting a wheel at speed. If you are driving at speed towards object then it is more or less coming at you in a straight line from the front. It may be tumbling or falling but driving into it at 150mph is surely where the main risk of catastrophic injury lies. eccles said:
jsf said:
You cant put a curved screen in front of a driver in a single seater, it completely distorts the view making the car impossible to drive properly. Anyone who has worked with a single seater knows this.
Yeah, 'cause LMP and aircraft don't have curved screens right in front of the driver!Crafty_ said:
Evangelion said:
I find it interesting that no-one has mentioned so far, that such a device could also have saved Senna's life.
How ? Senna's death was caused by a wheel hitting him on the head. His accident was one of the things that made them look in to wheel tethers.dr_gn said:
It was a suspension arm that pierced the helmet (or entered through the visor aperture) that killed Senna.
According to the inquest he had 3 head injuries, each capable of killing him. one of those was the suspension link that pieced the visor, one was from a suspension link that pierced his helmet and he also had a blunt trauma from most likely the wheel hitting his helmet at the height of his eyebrow.He was sadly very unlucky with regards to the angle of impact that caused his head to receive so much trauma.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff