Halo...

[kambites]

budgie smuggler said:

The FIA concluded it would not have made any difference in Jules' crash.

You may be right but that's not my memory - I thought the FIA concluded that there was no evidence it would have helped rather than that there was absolute evidence it would not have helped. I know the media reported the latter in some cases but I'm pretty sure it's not what the FIA actually concluded.

Even if the angle wasn't slight enough to defect the car away, it's hard to see how the halo wouldn't have caused at least some deceleration of the car before the final impact which would have lowered the peak G-force, albeit probably not by enough to have made it survivable.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 25th April 10:46

[TheDeuce]

kambites said:

You may be right but that's not my memory - I thought the FIA concluded that there was no evidence it would have helped rather than that there was absolute evidence it would not have helped. I know the media reported the latter in some cases but I'm pretty sure it's not what the FIA actually concluded.

Even if the angle wasn't slight enough to defect the car away, it's hard to see how the halo wouldn't have caused at least some deceleration of the car before the final impact which would have lowered the peak G-force, albeit probably not by enough to have made it survivable.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 25th April 10:46

The moment of instantaneous deceleration from Jules' point of view was when the top part of the car was wiped out by the contact with the telehandler. The halo device itself would likely have been destroyed under such force, and if it hadn't, it would have pushed the telehandler up even harder, and decelerated the car at that initial point of contact even harder. Deflecting the force and pushing the car to the side of the telehandler is all it could have done to help - which it probably would not have done in any case.

EDIT: to be honest, there isn't very much anything can do to help if an F1 car hits something so heavy and stationary at high speed. The force all has to go somewhere, even if the halo had deflected the car, the lateral forces would have been insane as a result, and there would still have been significant deceleration force too. Just too much energy sent towards to an effectively immovable object

Edited by TheDeuce on Thursday 25th April 11:03

[kambites]

True. The solution to that one had to be to make sure there was nothing nondeformable and heavy anywhere near the track while the cars were running at any sort of speed.

Mind you, whatever you do you're always going to get freak accidents like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju2oF2d4vGA which she was damned lucky to escape with relatively minor injuries.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 25th April 11:28

[TheDeuce]

kambites said:

True. The solution to that one had to be to make sure there was nothing nondeformable and heavy anywhere near the track while the cars were running at any sort of speed.

Mind you, whatever you do you're always going to get freak accidents like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju2oF2d4vGA which she was damned lucky to escape with relatively minor injuries.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 25th April 11:28

And driving at speed in the wet...

I knew exactly what video would link to before I clicked it! She was incredibly lucky. Lucky to hit something that gave way, effectively became a steel framed safety net I suppose.

There will indeed always be some risk. It's amazing we don't see more freak accidents in F1 really.

[The Moose]

kambites said:

True. The solution to that one had to be to make sure there was nothing nondeformable and heavy anywhere near the track while the cars were running at any sort of speed.

The solution to Bianchi’s crash was not to push so hard under double waved yellows. It was stupid and irresponsible. A shame it had such a tragic outcome. Now, anytime a vehicle is being recovered it’s a SC. Because the drivers can’t be trusted to stick to the rules.

[Eric Mc]

TheDeuce said:

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.

Might
Possible
Could
Maybe


How many drivers, in the history of ALL open wheel motor sport, have been killed by a blow to the head by a flying object (as opposed to basal skull fractures)?

I can think of two in 25 years.

[kambites]

Eric Mc said:

I can think of two in 25 years.

If the halo saves two lives in the next 25 years it's worth having.

[Supersam83]

Eric Mc said:

I can think of two in 25 years.

Which 2 drivers?

[LosingGrip]

kambites said:

If the halo saves two lives in the next 25 years it's worth having.

Couldn't agree more. Not sure why people are so against something that could make it safer if something goes wrong. Are people really wanting to see people crashing and dying?!

[budgie smuggler]

LosingGrip said:

Couldn't agree more. Not sure why people are so against something that could make it safer if something goes wrong. Are people really wanting to see people crashing and dying?!

Obviously not.

For many people it was just the latest in a long stream of things which make the visual, spectacle & 'purity' aspects of the sport worse.

I'm in favour of them for the safety, but let's face it, the halo looks absolute st.

Edited by budgie smuggler on Thursday 25th April 15:35

[24lemons]

budgie smuggler said:

I'm in favour of them for the safety, but let's face it, the halo looks absolute st.

I doubt you’ll get many people disagreeing with you about the way they look but I’ll happily put up with that if it means the driver is safer. The cars aren’t exactly lookers as they are anyway!

The halo is also not claimed to be the definitive answer to head protection and I expect to see it develop and evolve into a better integrated system in the future.

[MissChief]

budgie smuggler said:

LosingGrip said:

Couldn't agree more. Not sure why people are so against something that could make it safer if something goes wrong. Are people really wanting to see people crashing and dying?!

Obviously not.

For many people it was just the latest in a long stream of things which make the visual, spectacle & 'purity' aspects of the sport worse.

I'm in favour of them for the safety, but let's face it, the halo looks absolute st.

Edited by budgie smuggler on Thursday 25th April 15:35

Open the regs up so the teams can design their own. Keep the mounting points mandated as they are now and keep the load tests as they are now as well and let the teams design what they want. I'd wager they won't look all that different to what they look like now but it would bring in some differences.

[kambites]

budgie smuggler said:

I'm in favour of them for the safety, but let's face it, the halo looks absolute st.

Well yes, but so does the rest of the car.

For me, at least, F1 cars ceased to be objects of beauty when someone had the bright idea of bolting upside down wings onto them and by and large, as the aero has got better, it's got uglier. If you stuck a halo on an Eagle Westlake it would be a travesty but with the current cars... it's kinda the opposite of polishing a turd. Personally I watch F1 for the engineering not the aesthetics.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 25th April 15:45

[budgie smuggler]

kambites said:

Well yes, but so does the rest of the car.

For me, at least, F1 cars ceased to be objects of beauty when someone had the bright idea of bolting upside down wings onto them and by and large, as the aero has got better, it's got uglier. If you stuck a halo on an Eagle Westlake it would be a travesty but with the current cars... it's kinda the opposite of polishing a turd. Personally I watch F1 for the engineering not the aesthetics.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 25th April 15:45

Funny how people seem to pick an era and stick with it as their ideal for the cars. Mine is the late 80s/early 90s. FW14b, MP4/4, F1-91

[kambites]

budgie smuggler said:

Funny how people seem to pick an era and stick with it as their ideal for the cars. Mine is the late 80s/early 90s. FW14b, MP4/4, F1-91

I'd only nominate the 60s for aesthetics, other eras have been far better in other ways. In many ways the current era is my favourite.

[budgie smuggler]

kambites said:

I'd only nominate the 60s for aesthetics, other eras have been far better in other ways. In many ways the current era is my favourite.

Sorry yes that's what I meant, although I'd add the sound of the cars in there too.

[Eric Mc]

I couldn't care less about the modern "safety obsession".

My Scalextric set is looking more and more attractive with each passing day.

[budgie smuggler]

Indycar are to use a halo/screen hybrid next year.

Looks pretty good to me and should carry the benefits of both.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqAWdmkqe74

[kambites]

Makes it even harder to see the driver though - that really might as well be closed cockpit.

[Eric Mc]

I think that is a far more elegant solution than F1's "toilet seat" arrangement. As far as not being able to see the driver, that's been an issue for over a decade.