So they are going with Halo devices then

[Flooble]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36404898

The cynic in me can't help but ponder that the Halo has space for three sponsor logos on it while the aeroscreen had none ...

[Flooble]

Hunky Dory said:

PW said:

I bet if someone tried to tell you what to have for breakfast you'd all be livid, but potentially life saving safety features for others? BOOO! How dare they entertain the idea! Don't they know I WATCH ALMOST EVERY RACE?

Well said.

Whilst I agree that the halo idea is certainly not a perfect design (and far from beautiful!) the reality is that there isn't a 100% effective solution to every foreseeable accident for this type of equipment yet. What does seem pretty obvious though is that it will incrementally improve safety and reduce the risk of serious head injury so therefore I find it hard to understand an argument against the idea based on aesthetics.

Arguments from fans against safety functions in favour of cosmetics are slightly ironic when made in the same breath as statements that F1 leadership has lost its way.

Everyone needs to get over it. It will evolve in looks and in a few years time we (like the drivers I suspect) will barely notice it's there.

My argument was that they appear to have chosen what would seem to be a somewhat ineffective option of the two designs, which also happens to be the uglier of the two but does have space for those precious logos. I am concerned about the criteria used to judge, especially given their statement that the aeroscreen was unsatisfactory.

While I am not an engineer and so this opinion is essentially worthless, I do have serious concerns about the amount of safety improvement that the Halo will actually provide. It will only deflect the largest items of debris which, by definition, would apply the least pressure to the helmet anyway. It's the sharp point on a knife that hurts, not the dull handle. If the risk is the overall momentum of debris then it may make a difference but I am concerned that any improvement will be balanced by the increased risk of it deflecting small items back into the cockpit. Look at the incidents:

It may have saved Maria De Villota, but so would sensible safety measures around having sharp horizontal objects at driver head height. The aeroscreen would also likely have done the job in that case.
It likely would not have saved Jules Bianchi as the sudden stop would still be lethal. Again, the aeroscreen would likely have been as effective, possibly even more so as it may have offered a marginally slower deceleration.
It probably would have saved Justin Wilson, although the nose cone of cars is quite pointy so may well still penetrate the gaps in the halo versus bouncing off the aeroscreen.
It would have made no different at all to Massa's accident, but may trigger a few more (e.g. Button in Monaco on Thursday could have seen bits bouncing down off the Halo cross bar instead of going past the cockpit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C03ocAeLfN0). Whereas the aeroscreen would deflect the bolt etc.
Henry Surtees incident is possibly the only one that the halo would have helped in and aeroscreen is likely to have been just as effective.


Hence the question for me is why this device is the best that the engineers can design. Aircraft fly much (much!) faster and hit objects that are just as heavy (seen an Eagle?). They require optically clear canopies for obvious reasons. So the sticking point would seem to be that it's easier to make an enclosed canopy than an open one and that for some reason they can't build a carbon fibre ring at the top (as on the halo) to support the "rim" of the aeroscreen?

Maybe I should go get my tinfoil hat, but it just seems like a bodged up kludge of a solution which isn't going to help as much as the alternatives could.

[Flooble]

PW said:

While it doesn't impact your personal safety your opinion is 100% worthless.

Guessing your hair-trigger meant you didn't read that I felt they had gone for the less safe option then?