Halo's; just when you thought it was safe
Discussion
craigjm said:
I don't get all the hatred for the halo. What difference does it make to your enjoyment of the sport as a spectator? Unless of course you watch F1 to watch horrific accidents and see people die. If that's the case then let's go back to no seatbelt and tin hats because that's real racing right?
What matters is the quality of the racing and a halo device, regardless of colour, has no impact on that.
You don't think aesthetics matter? What matters is the quality of the racing and a halo device, regardless of colour, has no impact on that.
Derek Smith said:
craigjm said:
I don't get all the hatred for the halo. What difference does it make to your enjoyment of the sport as a spectator? Unless of course you watch F1 to watch horrific accidents and see people die. If that's the case then let's go back to no seatbelt and tin hats because that's real racing right?
What matters is the quality of the racing and a halo device, regardless of colour, has no impact on that.
You don't think aesthetics matter? What matters is the quality of the racing and a halo device, regardless of colour, has no impact on that.
craigjm said:
On a race car? Not in the slightest. When did you hear Bruce McLaren or Colin Chapman etc talk about aesthetics of a race car? All that matters is can it win and is the racing exciting. I would rather watch 20 really ugly, fairly evenly matched cars racing wheel with lots of overtaking and competition than 20 beautiful cars doing a procession and the same one winning every week.
I'm not sure I agree. I like beautiful cars. I like beautiful racing cars even more. Part of the enjoyment of racing is the image and F1 is all image.I used to be a bit of a Brabham fan. Their cars were stunning beautifully prepared - beautiful to look at when stationary and stunning when underway. I feel certain that for those who ran the team, beauty was important. Take a look at the BT50 and then suggest appearance wasn't important.
I'm told on fairly good authority that for Ron Dennis, appearance was important.
Your comparison is faulty: wouldn't most people want 20 beautiful evenly matched cars battling it out?
Derek Smith said:
Your comparison is faulty: wouldn't most people want 20 beautiful evenly matched cars battling it out?
Of course but that is not what you asked. You asked me if aesthetics were important so my comparison was with and without. I suspect F1 will never get to the point. Shame Derek Smith said:
Your comparison is faulty: wouldn't most people want 20 beautiful evenly matched cars battling it out?
You can watch F2 for that. Variety is the spice of life, I certainly don't want to see the cars even, I want to see them working in different ways to achieve the end result of interesting racing. If all the cars were the same performance it would be dull.jsf said:
You can watch F2 for that. Variety is the spice of life, I certainly don't want to see the cars even, I want to see them working in different ways to achieve the end result of interesting racing. If all the cars were the same performance it would be dull.
Evenly matched doesn't have to mean the same. Ferrari and MB are doing a good job of pretty much being evenly matched this year. Would be just nice to see Red Bull, McLaren, WilliamsAnd Renault up there too. Completely equal
Is as you say very dull like formula e
craigjm said:
On a race car? Not in the slightest. When did you hear Bruce McLaren or Colin Chapman etc talk about aesthetics of a race car? All that matters is can it win and is the racing exciting. I would rather watch 20 really ugly, fairly evenly matched cars racing wheel with lots of overtaking and competition than 20 beautiful cars doing a procession and the same one winning every week.
You have a point. The teams don't care about beauty they just want to win, and lets face it they have put some pretty ugly bits on cars over the decades. But the general public watching do prefer a nice car to look at.So a balance is needed as without fans there is no sport.
The halo though isn't for performance or beauty, it's just for perceived safety. Personally I think it should be available to a driver if they want it, but not mandatory if they don't.
PurpleMoonlight said:
The halo though isn't for performance or beauty, it's just for perceived safety. Personally I think it should be available to a driver if they want it, but not mandatory if they don't.
But then you might as well say the same about helmets, seat belts, Hans etc as I said above and then we end up back at square one with a very unsafe sport. Give it 2 years of halo and people won't even notice it 
sparta6 said:
F1 is currently wrapped in cotton wool. Some rain - ooh let's stop practice and quali.
By contrast MotoGP go racing in extreme wet conditions.They earn their money.
The problem with wet weather running at the moment is not the effectiveness of the extreme wet tyres, it's aquaplaning. The cars are running so low that it doesn't take a lot of standing water for the cars to start aquaplaning off, as happened to Grosjean at Monza. Driving in those conditions has little to do with driver skill, just pot luck. The FIA could mandate the ride height is raised in the wet, but that would have a severe effect on the aerodynamics, especially if it then dries out during the race. This could be tackled if they brought back active suspension, as has been mooted. The engineeers could then design in a high suspension setting for better wet running, which could be lowered when the track dries out. By contrast MotoGP go racing in extreme wet conditions.They earn their money.
Either way, the drivers certainly earn there money.
I disagree on a few points, first is the wet tyre, it is s
t and has been since Pirelli came in, numerous drivers have made their feelings known about the extreme wet tyre over the seasons, the most recent was hulkenberg a day or so after monza, they just don't shift enough water he said, secondly is ride height; low ride height I don't think so; have you seen how much rake they run now, thirdly wet tyres increase ride height automatically by way of diameter size, refitting slicks for drying track lowers the ride height back to the starting point, no active needed or certainly not needed rain scenario
t and has been since Pirelli came in, numerous drivers have made their feelings known about the extreme wet tyre over the seasons, the most recent was hulkenberg a day or so after monza, they just don't shift enough water he said, secondly is ride height; low ride height I don't think so; have you seen how much rake they run now, thirdly wet tyres increase ride height automatically by way of diameter size, refitting slicks for drying track lowers the ride height back to the starting point, no active needed or certainly not needed rain scenariocraigjm said:
I think they could improve the wet tyre and also should bring back tyre competition.
The Pirelli wet leaves a lot to be desired and needs massive improvement but to be fair and as hulkenberg commented recently when do Pirelli get chance to test wet weather tyres, hardly ever. Tyre competition would drive costs up but that aside I'd be in favour, I remember the Michelin wets were the dogs bks and ran rings round the Bridgestone in full wet mode but the Bridgestone inters had the Michelin running for covercraigjm said:
But then you might as well say the same about helmets, seat belts, Hans etc as I said above and then we end up back at square one with a very unsafe sport. Give it 2 years of halo and people won't even notice it
The devices you've listed above reduce the risk of driver injury in every single crash absolutely massively and do not detract from the show/sport at all.The halo on the other hand would only prevent injuries in a tiny number of freak accidents where there is either a large piece of debris on a trajectory to the drivers head, or the car stikes another car or solid object at precisely the right angle.
Given the above, it can't be compared to other safety devices that will help in every single crash, and it's looks fundamentally change open cockpit racing as we know it.
Todt's tenure has done nothing positive for formula 1; terrible engines, 'faster' cars that are less able to race and now a ridiculous device with dubious safety credentials that as some one else said is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Derek Smith said:
You don't think aesthetics matter?
I think aesthetics does matter - but only to the spectator. Anyway it disappeared from F1 forever, the day some idiot decided to hide the cars under wings and adverts.I do hate the halo ... but have to concede that its effect on the look of the cars is minimal.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff