2018 "Onboard" camera

[fatboy69]

So. The in-car camera.

What a superb view.......

[The Moose]

The Selfish Gene said:

Mothersruin said:

Oh well, might not have great views but the cars look and sound great.

the "F1" cars look and sound great? Assuming sarcasm............or you've been overdoing your username significantly early on a Friday

I thought last years cars (and by extension I'm assuming this years too) sounded great as a pack, not so good individually.

I also really like the look of them (not sure on the halo yet - waiting until I've seen some racing to be sure)

[Doink]

Yes the view is crap but you can't tell me the teams didn't know the halo would be in the way of the camera views, my take on it is they did and didn't apply to the FIA by the june 30th deadline for new camera positions because they are trying to prove a point, to the FIA and/or liberty that the halo is crap and its stay should be temporary, it would appear to me that there might be method in their madness here

[StevieBee]

Doink said:

Yes the view is crap but you can't tell me the teams didn't know the halo would be in the way of the camera views, my take on it is they did and didn't apply to the FIA by the june 30th deadline for new camera positions because they are trying to prove a point, to the FIA and/or liberty that the halo is crap and its stay should be temporary, it would appear to me that there might be method in their madness here

There's some logic in your thinking that could be applied to the whole halo itself.

I fully buy into its purpose, need and intent but cannot for the life of me think how an industry noted for its design ingenuity and skill has ended up with such an inelegant solution....unless it was, as you say, to make a point!

[rscott]

Doink said:

Yes the view is crap but you can't tell me the teams didn't know the halo would be in the way of the camera views, my take on it is they did and didn't apply to the FIA by the june 30th deadline for new camera positions because they are trying to prove a point, to the FIA and/or liberty that the halo is crap and its stay should be temporary, it would appear to me that there might be method in their madness here

FIA have always said the halo is an interim solution. Maybe they've done this to try and persuade the teams to come up with a workable alternative?

[Mr Pointy]

Doink said:

Yes the view is crap but you can't tell me the teams didn't know the halo would be in the way of the camera views, my take on it is they did and didn't apply to the FIA by the june 30th deadline for new camera positions because they are trying to prove a point, to the FIA and/or liberty that the halo is crap and its stay should be temporary, it would appear to me that there might be method in their madness here

What has the camera mounting position got to do with the teams? They just put them where they are told to, hence them having to have nine months notice.

[Jasandjules]

Mr Pointy said:

What has the camera mounting position got to do with the teams? They just put them where they are told to, hence them having to have nine months notice.

What is odd is that a couple of the cameras give almost acceptable views. Other cars (McLaren and Merc for example) give a view of the Halo and little else....

[anonymous-user]

It's pretty funny that a sport which is supposed to be the "pinnacle" can't fit a camera on the car so the fans can see.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 23 March 18:03

[mattikake]

I just knew there'd be a thread about this. The view is pathetic. They look like bumper cars or public karts with all round bumpers.

Really the should be installing drivers helmet/visor cams as the only solution. With today's technology there is no excuse for not having them.

[Doink]

Mr Pointy said:

Doink said:

Yes the view is crap but you can't tell me the teams didn't know the halo would be in the way of the camera views, my take on it is they did and didn't apply to the FIA by the june 30th deadline for new camera positions because they are trying to prove a point, to the FIA and/or liberty that the halo is crap and its stay should be temporary, it would appear to me that there might be method in their madness here

What has the camera mounting position got to do with the teams? They just put them where they are told to, hence them having to have nine months notice.

That just underlines my point, by not making a fuss and asking the fia to have them moved they've just made the fia look like fools, like I said you can't tell me it never crossed the minds of all those clever people within the teams that the halo would be in the way of the cameras, course they knew but they kept their mouths shut

[epom]

F1 in messing up something everyone enjoys shock. You have to wonder sometimes who these idiots (no doubt handsomely paid) making the decisions are?

[anonymous-user]

It’s much harder to tell which driver is which in any view. It’s made even worse in some in car views with advertising on top of the ugly thing.

They definitely need an Indy style helmet cam.

[Driller]

I think the halo is ugly and a shame but once the subject of head protection against airborne objects and head level impacts was raised in the wake of the Henry Surtees, Jules Bianchi and Maris de Vilota deaths, they were forced to find a solution.

Imagine if they had done nothing and there was another similar accident which involved death or serious injury. Public opinion in this day and age and the obligation to act would have put the sport and its owners in an untenable position.

[Eric Mc]

Driller said:

I. Public opinion in this day and age and the obligation to act would have put the sport and its owners in an untenable position.

Really?

[Eric Mc]

Actually, looking at the on-board footage om Hamilton's lap, the Halo didn't seem too obtrusive. Yes, you could see it but it didn't block the view from the camera to any significant extent.

[Driller]

Eric Mc said:

Driller said:

I. Public opinion in this day and age and the obligation to act would have put the sport and its owners in an untenable position.

Really?

Possibilities:

1) Genuine surprise
2) Sarcasm
3) Calculated thought provoking edginess
4)...?

[Eric Mc]

Driller said:

Possibilities:

1) Genuine surprise
2) Sarcasm
3) Calculated thought provoking edginess
4)...?

No really.

Why does F1 feel it has to enforce a level of caution way in excess of what is deemed acceptable in many other sports such as motor cycle racing, horse racing, three day eventing etc?

Is it "special" in some way?

Are the protagonists more worthy than say, a jockey?

[Mr Pointy]

Driller said:

Imagine if they had done nothing and there was another similar accident which involved death or serious injury. Public opinion in this day and age and the obligation to act would have put the sport and its owners in an untenable position.

I don't believe pulic opinion has anything to do with it; it's the legal implications that have driven this decision. The halo isn't being implemented in any other class of racing so it won't prevent any future Henry Surtees type incidents. The FIA got spooked by the Bianci legal issues & decided to cover themselves.

There have always been deaths & injuries in motorsport & it hasn't put the fans off. Those directly affected might have changed their view but to be blunt, they didn't care either until it happened to someone close to them.

[Driller]

Eric Mc said:

Driller said:

Possibilities:

1) Genuine surprise
2) Sarcasm
3) Calculated thought provoking edginess
4)...?

No really.

Why does F1 feel it has to enforce a level of caution way in excess of what is deemed acceptable in many other sports such as motor cycle racing, horse racing, three day eventing etc?

Is it "special" in some way?

Are the protagonists more worthy than say, a jockey?

I understand your point.

I don't know, on a percentage of races basis, the chances of dying on a racehorse compared to in an F1 car.

Also, for the accidents/deaths that do surely occur, I'm not sure they could be easily avoidable by a relatively small and simple, albeit ugly, protective structure on the horses.

So people are more resigned to the accidents that do happen in horse racing and nothing to do with the people involved?

[Mr Pointy]

Doink said:

Mr Pointy said:

Doink said:

Yes the view is crap but you can't tell me the teams didn't know the halo would be in the way of the camera views, my take on it is they did and didn't apply to the FIA by the june 30th deadline for new camera positions because they are trying to prove a point, to the FIA and/or liberty that the halo is crap and its stay should be temporary, it would appear to me that there might be method in their madness here

What has the camera mounting position got to do with the teams? They just put them where they are told to, hence them having to have nine months notice.

That just underlines my point, by not making a fuss and asking the fia to have them moved they've just made the fia look like fools, like I said you can't tell me it never crossed the minds of all those clever people within the teams that the halo would be in the way of the cameras, course they knew but they kept their mouths shut

The camera mounting points were mandated on June 30th 2017 when barely any running with the halo had been done so although Liberty knew there might be issues, no-one actually knew how it would really work out. It's nonsensical to state that every team was complicit in a conspiricy of silence to produce a whole season of bad coverage. What's the advantage of doing that?