Proposed 'shield', halo alternative, unveiled
Discussion
Moreover, Bianchi accident was preventable in a much simpler way, with the better enforcement of yellow flag restrictions. This has been overcome with the VSC and so long as it is always deployed when there is heavy machinery on track the risks of a repeat incident are reduced enormously.
It's been nearly quarter of a century (nearly 500 race weekends!) since the halo would have made a difference in an F1 incident, with risks that minimal it's hard to argue that such a drastic change is necessary.
It's been nearly quarter of a century (nearly 500 race weekends!) since the halo would have made a difference in an F1 incident, with risks that minimal it's hard to argue that such a drastic change is necessary.
Dark85 said:
Moreover, Bianchi accident was preventable in a much simpler way, with the better enforcement of yellow flag restrictions. This has been overcome with the VSC and so long as it is always deployed when there is heavy machinery on track the risks of a repeat incident are reduced enormously.
It's been nearly quarter of a century (nearly 500 race weekends!) since the halo would have made a difference in an F1 incident, with risks that minimal it's hard to argue that such a drastic change is necessary.
Alonso almost got his head taken clean off by a car during a shunt, a few years ago. A few centimetres would have been sufficient. The Halo would have protected him against that. It's been nearly quarter of a century (nearly 500 race weekends!) since the halo would have made a difference in an F1 incident, with risks that minimal it's hard to argue that such a drastic change is necessary.
And Surtees Jr would be alive today if he'd had a Halo (admittedly, not F1). It's also quite possible that María de Villota may not have suffered the facial and cranial injuries and loss of an eye that she did.
So I don't know where your quarter of a century is coming from. Presumably you're referring to Senna's death.
Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Saturday 22 July 10:41
ClockworkCupcake said:
... Presumably you're referring to Senna's death.
Would a halo have prevented a suspension component from entering his helmet? I seem to remember reading somewhere that any one of the three injuries he received would have killed him; the halo therefore would have needed to prevent all three.Evangelion said:
Would a halo have prevented a suspension component from entering his helmet? I seem to remember reading somewhere that any one of the three injuries he received would have killed him; the halo therefore would have needed to prevent all three.
I don't know. Personally, I think the halo looks bloody ridiculous and, as you say, I'm not sure how effective it will be in the majority of cases. But it's hard to argue for aesthetics over increased driver safety.
It's rather a pointless argument anyway - it's a fait accompli now.
It'll stop a wheel so yeah brilliant but what happens when a driver gets hit by a spring, a drive shaft or a wheel nut, what happens then? Will the driver sue the FIA for not properly protecting against smaller objects when they were aware, if your going to protect against head injuries then surely you need to protect against all possibilities
ClockworkCupcake said:
Alonso almost got his head taken clean off by a car during a shunt, a few years ago. A few centimetres would have been sufficient. The Halo would have protected him against that.
And Surtees Jr would be alive today if he'd had a Halo (admittedly, not F1). It's also quite possible that María de Villota may not have suffered the facial and cranial injuries and loss of an eye that she did.
So I don't know where your quarter of a century is coming from. Presumably you're referring to Senna's death.
Obviously, I'm referring to Senna's death, stop being obtuse. And Surtees Jr would be alive today if he'd had a Halo (admittedly, not F1). It's also quite possible that María de Villota may not have suffered the facial and cranial injuries and loss of an eye that she did.
So I don't know where your quarter of a century is coming from. Presumably you're referring to Senna's death.
Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Saturday 22 July 10:41
Henry Surtees could have been saved by improving the wheel tethering, why weren't double tethers introduced until after his accident again? This would also protect marshals, pit crews, media and even spectators whilst having no impact on the fans. If wheels can't be secured to an acceptable standard should we really be going open wheel racing at all?
Maria De Villota could have been prevented by not driving the car so close to the teams trucks - .
Alonso, you have some what a point on, although as you want to take a snide tone I'll point out that I said 'would have made a difference', not would have nearly made a difference.
Whilst I'm not against improvements in safety that can be made with minimal impact on the essence of the sport, VSC, better wheel tethering, better helmets, restrictions on where the cars can be driven etc etc. I do not believe there is so much danger that drastic measures such as this are required further I think those that believe the danger is too high should be calling for an end to open cockpit racing entirety. Whilst that's not a position I'd agree with, I certainly respect it a lot more than the ridiculous halfway house that is the halo.
Dr Z said:
p1stonhead said:
Is this to stop a Senna/Surtees type incident happening if the wheel tethers fail?
Yep, it's supposed to deflect big objects such as the wheels like this:
I hope that wasn't the full extent of their testing.
Dr Z said:
I don't think the pic above is the correct perspective. This should be more how it should look from the driver's perspective:
Slightly raised camera angle:
I prefer the aero screen than halo but do FIA have another option that can be implemented next year? The halo was always a covering the backside option for the FIA.
You can just hear the drivers excuses stating that they hit their Championship contender due to the blind spot.Slightly raised camera angle:
I prefer the aero screen than halo but do FIA have another option that can be implemented next year? The halo was always a covering the backside option for the FIA.
BTW in a bad accident how would the driver be able to extract himself if this crap got stuck?
It is funny how over the years teams have put wings or aerodynamic devices in the eye line of the drivers only for the FIA to ban them due to it obstructing view slightly and now they come up with this rubbish.
The FIA really do write the funnest joke book of all.
Just one reminder which looks a bit like the halo's view.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 23 July 00:38
ClockworkCupcake said:
Alonso almost got his head taken clean off by a car during a shunt, a few years ago. A few centimetres would have been sufficient. The Halo would have protected him against that.
And Surtees Jr would be alive today if he'd had a Halo (admittedly, not F1). It's also quite possible that María de Villota may not have suffered the facial and cranial injuries and loss of an eye that she did.
And Surtees Jr would be alive today if he'd had a Halo (admittedly, not F1). It's also quite possible that María de Villota may not have suffered the facial and cranial injuries and loss of an eye that she did.
Used to be on the back of every ticket....
Ultimately it is meant to be an open wheel formula, with the associated thrills and yes, danger, as with every single forumlae.
Either leave it as it is, with an understood - and acceptable to the drivers - level of risk, or Just make it closed cockpit and be done with it.
Well it is a fact that everyone who gets into a car to race it, does so of their own free will. It's not as if they were conscripted into the RAF and strapped into a Spitfire, not knowing if they'd land safely or be shot down - as indeed would have been the case a mere 10 years before F1 started.
Evangelion said:
Well it is a fact that everyone who gets into a car to race it, does so of their own free will. It's not as if they were conscripted into the RAF and strapped into a Spitfire, not knowing if they'd land safely or be shot down - as indeed would have been the case a mere 10 years before F1 started.
F1 started the year after World War 2 ended. The first race to F1 specs was in 1946.The first race under the new regulations was the 1946 Turin Grand Prix held on 1 September, the race being won by Achille Varzi in an Alfa Romeo 158 Alfetta.
They should have gone fully enclosed or done nothing, not this half arsed attempt. The rumour is that some designers were against the shield/air screen because having to raise the intake higher to maintain airflow to the engine. Apparently it would have led to all the cars having Ligier style 'Teapot' airboxs.
But instead of changing the rules to get rid of the 'overhead' intake as well as the 'shark fin' we are left with this cock up. Instead of the overhead intake you could have possibly had twin intakes either side of the driver or mounted on top of the side pods. Which means the cars would look like more like they did back in 87/88.
Whatever, it's looks s
t and with the paywall going up it gives me another reason not worry about it or a sport which even with a change of management seemingly has no idea what the fans actually want.
And despite the fact they have been consulted about the next changes to the F1 engine rules and that the last race in New York was utter st (the track was so narrow and twisty you might as well have sent the cars round Buckmoor Park.), Porsche are now sniffing around Formula E.
F1 needs to be very careful. Disappearing behind a paywall and badly thought out crap like this Halo is not the way to encourage people or manufacturers to the sport.
But instead of changing the rules to get rid of the 'overhead' intake as well as the 'shark fin' we are left with this cock up. Instead of the overhead intake you could have possibly had twin intakes either side of the driver or mounted on top of the side pods. Which means the cars would look like more like they did back in 87/88.
Whatever, it's looks s
t and with the paywall going up it gives me another reason not worry about it or a sport which even with a change of management seemingly has no idea what the fans actually want. And despite the fact they have been consulted about the next changes to the F1 engine rules and that the last race in New York was utter s
t (the track was so narrow and twisty you might as well have sent the cars round Buckmoor Park.), Porsche are now sniffing around Formula E.F1 needs to be very careful. Disappearing behind a paywall and badly thought out crap like this Halo is not the way to encourage people or manufacturers to the sport.
That's what I'm so worried about. I'm trying to think of any changes in recent years that have excited me or made me say "I can't wait".
By the way,. when the original tall airboxes of the mid 1970s were abolished at the start of the 1976, season, most cars started sporting twin airboxes either side of the roll over structure -
By the way,. when the original tall airboxes of the mid 1970s were abolished at the start of the 1976, season, most cars started sporting twin airboxes either side of the roll over structure -
Eric Mc said:
That's what I'm so worried about. I'm trying to think of any changes in recent years that have excited me or made me say "I can't wait".
By the way,. when the original tall airboxes of the mid 1970s were abolished at the start of the 1976, season, most cars started sporting twin airboxes either side of the roll over structure -
The high airboxes were banned after the 3rd round of 1976, the first 3 races they used the high airbox. The cars went quicker with the lower airbox configuration.By the way,. when the original tall airboxes of the mid 1970s were abolished at the start of the 1976, season, most cars started sporting twin airboxes either side of the roll over structure -
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff