Discussion
k.They still look horrific, although you notice them less than you used to. The idea of having that HUD thing when the camera is above the driver is a good idea and hides the abomination. But the cars still look awful, it's like the time when they had those horrible Fisher Price toy wings on the rear. You get used to it in the way you get used to toothache.
Meanwhile, in America... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0MO4Qwc2ZE
thegreenhell said:
Meanwhile, in America... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0MO4Qwc2ZE
That's just a temporary measure until they finish the screen they've been working as the Halo won't work on oval tracks.Like it or not, the halo has potentially saved 2 lives this far. It may have also saved Jules life, although that was a mighty immovable object he struck very hard, so who knows.
The most obvious was leclerc's crash, that wheel left a tyre mark on the halo bridge, which if it wasn't there could only have impacted his helmet. Easily enough force to twist/snap a neck.
Given that Jules was his friend, and Jules father his godfather, there can hardly be a more poignant demonstration of how the halo really can save a life.
I agree, it's not the best looking development in F1. But I'd prefer to see a halo device than see a 2019 grid without a leclerc in it.
The most obvious was leclerc's crash, that wheel left a tyre mark on the halo bridge, which if it wasn't there could only have impacted his helmet. Easily enough force to twist/snap a neck.
Given that Jules was his friend, and Jules father his godfather, there can hardly be a more poignant demonstration of how the halo really can save a life.
I agree, it's not the best looking development in F1. But I'd prefer to see a halo device than see a 2019 grid without a leclerc in it.
TheDeuce said:
Like it or not, the halo has potentially saved 2 lives this far. It may have also saved Jules life, although that was a mighty immovable object he struck very hard, so who knows.
The most obvious was leclerc's crash, that wheel left a tyre mark on the halo bridge, which if it wasn't there could only have impacted his helmet. Easily enough force to twist/snap a neck.
Given that Jules was his friend, and Jules father his godfather, there can hardly be a more poignant demonstration of how the halo really can save a life.
I agree, it's not the best looking development in F1. But I'd prefer to see a halo device than see a 2019 grid without a leclerc in it.
I wouldn't say that the halo saved Leclerc, as the tyre hit the halo in front of his head. It'd be a different story if the tyre hit the halo at the side of him. So that's up in the air.The most obvious was leclerc's crash, that wheel left a tyre mark on the halo bridge, which if it wasn't there could only have impacted his helmet. Easily enough force to twist/snap a neck.
Given that Jules was his friend, and Jules father his godfather, there can hardly be a more poignant demonstration of how the halo really can save a life.
I agree, it's not the best looking development in F1. But I'd prefer to see a halo device than see a 2019 grid without a leclerc in it.
But the halo certaintly wouldn't have saved Jules. There's no way it would've stood up to 20 tonnes of pure steel going at 70mph. Jules would've saved his own life if he wasn't going faster in a double waved yellow part of the track in wet conditions.
Eric Mc said:
High speed impact brain damage is most often caused by basal skull fractures - which Halos can do nothing to prevent.
Yes, but they can stop the removal of ones actual head from ones body. Or in Leclerc's incident, that rotating wheel would have hit his helmet/visor, and his neck/spine is clearly not supposed to 'catch' or deflect the weight of an airborne F1 car. It would at best have been pretty ugly.And of course, some high speed impacts that cause brain damage are resolved and the victim goes on to live a fantastic life. It's easier to recover from brain damage than a detached head, or a missing face.
sgtBerbatov said:
But the halo certaintly wouldn't have saved Jules.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. It obviously wouldn't have been strong enough to push the truck away (or life it or whatever) but if you look at the angle the car actually struck the truck, it just might have deflected the car away and consequently lead to much lower peak deceleration forces. IMO in all probability it wouldn't have done enough but I don't believe we can say it certainly wouldn't unless someone has actually modeled it.
All in all, despite being dubious initially, I think the halo has been a success. Even if it hasn't actually saved any lives there's been a few incidents where it has make accidents significantly less risky and personally I don't notice the things anymore anyway.
budgie smuggler said:
As sgtBerbatov explained above, it hit the halo well in front of his head so you can't assert it 'would have hit his helmet'.
Ok... I 'believe, it would have done'. Given that the car bounced off the halo, after the tyre had glanced it, if the halo had not been there, at the angle the car was at, I fail to see how it could not: https://youtu.be/fuRRLkc4qUo?t=21However, does it really matter? It could have hit his helmet, can't be proven absolutely either way. Not really the point though.
In the LeClerc incident it's clear the tyre wasn't on a path to his his head when it actually hit the halo, but it's also clear that the halo had already hit the floor of the Mclaren and deflected the whole car away to some degree. Whether the path of the Mclaren would have lead to the tyre hitting his head if the halo hadn't been there is impossible to tell from the camera angles available. Probably not - coming in from the side there's very little of the driver's head sticking up above the cockpit sides, but it's certainly possible.
kambites said:
sgtBerbatov said:
But the halo certaintly wouldn't have saved Jules.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. It obviously wouldn't have been strong enough to push the truck away (or life it or whatever) but if you look at the angle the car actually struck the truck, it just might have deflected the car away and consequently lead to much lower peak deceleration forces. IMO in all probability it wouldn't have done enough but I don't believe we can say it certainly wouldn't unless someone has actually modeled it.
If I were forced to see a repeat of that incident today though, I would certainly vote for the halo device to be in place - there is a slim chance it could have helped.
Edited by TheDeuce on Thursday 25th April 09:49
TheDeuce said:
Ok... I 'believe, it would have done'. Given that the car bounced off the halo, after the tyre had glanced it, if the halo had not been there, at the angle the car was at, I fail to see how it could not: https://youtu.be/fuRRLkc4qUo?t=21
However, does it really matter? It could have hit his helmet, can't be proven absolutely either way. Not really the point though.
FWIW The FIA's analysis also concluded it would not have contacted his head.However, does it really matter? It could have hit his helmet, can't be proven absolutely either way. Not really the point though.
TheDeuce said:
It was hard to tell, and frankly I'm not about to go back and watch the footage again - I'm not that morbid. But I agree, if the contact point was off centre, it could have deflected the car and made a real difference. I recall the telehandler was thrown upwards as the car went under though, which given the telehandler would weight at least 8 tonnes, was probably a fairly direct hit, it looked like the centre-line of the car passed straight under the rear end, where most of the weight is. I concur, the halo device probably would have been useless that time.
If I were forced to see a repeat of that incident today though, I would certainly vote for the halo device to be in place - there is a slim chance it could have helped.
The FIA concluded it would not have made any difference in Jules' crash.If I were forced to see a repeat of that incident today though, I would certainly vote for the halo device to be in place - there is a slim chance it could have helped.
Edited by TheDeuce on Thursday 25th April 09:49
I should add that I'm not against the halo, I think it is an ugly knee-jerk solution, but on balance it's a good safety upgrade. I would have preferred something like red bull's aeroscreen personally, but to be truthful that is not without issues either.
eta: this video is worth a watch if you haven't seen it
https://youtu.be/AYkGjUHstKY?t=694
Edited by budgie smuggler on Thursday 25th April 10:13
Without wishing to go over old ground, especially on such a morbid subject, I'm sure it was concluded that it was the sudden stop that caused the brain injuries (ie brain against inside of skull) rather than any direct blow to the head. It was the angle that the car hit that meant it missed all the crash structures (front nosecone and sidepod) so there was no controlled deceleration; it just stopped. You can add all the protective structures you like, but if a car meets an immoveable object from high speed then it is the softest link in the chain that will suffer worst.
Having a Halo in that event might have made a difference, or it might not. You cannot say with any certainty either way. What you can say is that he died, not because of a lack of a Halo device, but because of other safety and procedural failings at the track that day and in the sport in general.
Having a Halo in that event might have made a difference, or it might not. You cannot say with any certainty either way. What you can say is that he died, not because of a lack of a Halo device, but because of other safety and procedural failings at the track that day and in the sport in general.
thegreenhell said:
Without wishing to go over old ground, especially on such a morbid subject, I'm sure it was concluded that it was the sudden stop that caused the brain injuries (ie brain against inside of skull) rather than any direct blow to the head. It was the angle that the car hit that meant it missed all the crash structures (front nosecone and sidepod) so there was no controlled deceleration; it just stopped. You can add all the protective structures you like, but if a car meets an immoveable object from high speed then it is the softest link in the chain that will suffer worst.
Having a Halo in that event might have made a difference, or it might not. You cannot say with any certainty either way. What you can say is that he died, not because of a lack of a Halo device, but because of other safety and procedural failings at the track that day and in the sport in general.
It's true other safety measures would have done far more than halo ever could on that occasion - and now of course, it's a safety car any time a car has to be retrieved.Having a Halo in that event might have made a difference, or it might not. You cannot say with any certainty either way. What you can say is that he died, not because of a lack of a Halo device, but because of other safety and procedural failings at the track that day and in the sport in general.
The inference is that if that car was over far enough, the halo 'could' have deflected that contact with the telehandler, that caused the sudden deceleration. The car itself continued to travel through into the barriers - poor Jules helmet may have already suffered it's 'sudden stop' moment at that point though.
I very much doubt the halo device would have done anything, I think the car was far enough under the overhang of the telehandler to have failed completely, along with any other part of the car at the same height. There is a slim chance it could have deflected a lot of the impact force if the car had been far enough to the side of the overhang though.
I agree, we can't know - all we know is that in each incident, the drivers head is potentially better protected as a result of having the device in place.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff