HALO Approved for 2018

[strad]

If a frog had wings.

[adrianjordan]

Furthermore, how can there be a procedure for overturning a car when every crash and the associated damage is different?? The procedure is for the FIA doctor to evaluate the scene and take charge - which happened in this incident.

I work for the ambulance service and regularly work alongside the fire service at RTC's and trust me, they have a plan for how they will deal with any situation.

When they were righting Hulk's car in Abu Dhabi you have lot of man handling, but no failsafe for if someone slipped. Since they had presumably decided by that point that Hulk was OK, they could have taken a little bit of time and got the crane in. They could then a have secured a strap to the car and the crane, such that IF the people man-handling the car lost their grip, then the strap to the crane would take the slack, thus avoiding dropping the car and driver.

It is not the Doctor's job to be in charge of how they right the car, he should merely be dictating the urgency of getting then out.

Maybe it's time for them to recruit someone from the Fire Service to be in charge of driver extracation...

Funny thing is all the people talking about Halo is an obstruction to getting out... If the driver had a broken neck for whatever reason.. He still wouldn't be able to get out if he had no Halo to contend with! So it would back to the same situation of gently turning the car right side up.

Yep. Agree. All the more reason that they should have a robust and well-rehearsed procedure for righting the car....as I am sure I have read that they do for actually removing the driver's seat with him still in it.

[zac510]

Guys, leaving aside the fact that it looks crap, and that it may or may not work in XX.X% of incidents, and that it makes getting out more difficult in some cases, if they now decide to say 'yes, we were wrong, take it away', and some one has a serious injury from which may just possibly have slightly saved them, if you look at it in the right light, even if it was their fault for deliberately driving at 300 mph into a brick wall, FIA and all concerned with F1 will end up paying through the nose and possibly even getting locked up, so it is here to stay.

They can not now back down, even in the unlikely case they would anyway.

Just because we're stuck with this visual abomination doesn't mean a designer shouldn't be allowed to integrate it into the design in a more aesthetically pleasing manner. I know F1 is function over form, but I will never honestly say I like the look of the current design. Bring on 2021 and it's redesign, hopefully by someone with an eye for aesthetics

Yes, I think it could be made to look a lot better.

Definitely if you look at the F2 and Formula E, where there are no halo aero fairings, a smaller airbox and smaller or no airbox camera, the halo looks more streamlined. F1 should definitely go in that direction, I think.

[zac510]

I get the impression a lot of people here are arguing against the HALO because they still dislike the aesthetics, so any functional failure of the HALO is an opportunity to attack it

So very very wrong. I couldn't care less about how it looks. I care that people can't stand up and say,,"Geeez I guess there are situations where I was wrong. It does make extraction more difficult and it doesn't protect from debris as much as was touted."
Really simple.

My comment wasn't aimed at you. You've made it quite clear you're just attacking the person and not the halo.

[Formula Wrong]

When they were righting Hulk's car in Abu Dhabi you have lot of man handling, but no failsafe for if someone slipped. Since they had presumably decided by that point that Hulk was OK, they could have taken a little bit of time and got the crane in. They could then a have secured a strap to the car and the crane, such that IF the people man-handling the car lost their grip, then the strap to the crane would take the slack, thus avoiding dropping the car and driver.

It is not the Doctor's job to be in charge of how they right the car, he should merely be dictating the urgency of getting then out.

Maybe it's time for them to recruit someone from the Fire Service to be in charge of driver extracation...

Now that you mention it, I don't think I've seen a case where a car was turned back on its wheels with any special tools (neither in F1 or other series). Kinda weird since the actual FIA recommendations include this:

The marshal posts, as well as the fire tenders, should have the
following complementary equipment:
a) tools for righting an overturned car, i.e. ropes, hooks, long
crowbars;
[...]

[strad]

You've made it quite clear you're just attacking the person and not the halo.

Now you are just being funny.
If it wasn't aimed at me why did you quote me?
And just which person do you see me attacking?
I see myself as the one attacked for having a differing opinion and wondering why when shown to be mistaken some on this site won't back up.
I always think of Singapore. When our first night race was announced I said it would be great. There were whole bunch of people that said ''Oh No, it will be dangerous. It won't be bright enough,,, the glare will blind the drivers ,,.,, the shadows will make it dangerous and we won't be able to see clearly,,, a whole list of reasons why it wouldn't work, would be dangerous. Not one person afterwards said OOOPs I was wrong.
I have always been up front about admitting it if I was wrong. AND if I see a situation where the HALO clearly is a factor in saving some drivers life I will be the first to admit I was wrong and say I'm glad it was there. So far I haven't seen that case. Not Alonso or the girl in Macau. I haven't seen a case where the roll hoop wasn't what protected the driver.

[Just_a_fan]

So far I haven't seen that case. Not Alonso or the girl in Macau. I haven't seen a case where the roll hoop wasn't what protected the driver.

Leclerc when Alonso went over him at Spa. I seem to remember that even when shown photos of the witness marks of the tyre impact on the halo, you still denied it had played a part in protecting him from an impact.

Makino in F2 at Barcelona is another example.

[NathanOlder]

So far I haven't seen that case. Not Alonso or the girl in Macau. I haven't seen a case where the roll hoop wasn't what protected the driver.

Leclerc when Alonso went over him at Spa. I seem to remember that even when shown photos of the witness marks of the tyre impact on the halo, you still denied it had played a part in protecting him from an impact.

Makino in F2 at Barcelona is another example.

I dont think the Spa example is something that can be claimed to have saved a driver from injury. What I'm getting at is, If the Halo was on the cars in 2012 so many people would be singing and dancing and saying If the Halo wasn't on Alonso's car, he would have dies or be seriously injured. When in fact he was perfectly fine without it.

I think the incident this year at Spa was just like that.

[Phil]

In that particular incident - if you had been sitting there, would you prefer to have the Halo there or not?

[NathanOlder]

Oh 100% with the Halo. But I'm not happy people claim it's saved lives when clearly it hasn't yet and hopefully never had to.

In that particular incident I would have preferred closed wheels and a fully enclosed cockpit. But it doesn't mean we have to go down that route.

[hollus]

https://twitter.com/keithcollantine/sta ... p-04-12%2F

Coming from FIA itself . Of course, coming from FIA itself
Make of it what you want.

Sometimes I wonder why the need to win the discussion or to be proven right or to prove someone wrong. Specially when reality is so often gray. It can be nice to enjoy the gray for its own grayness, making it a blend of white and black makes it less genuine.

[Phil]

Oh 100% with the Halo. But I'm not happy people claim it's saved lives when clearly it hasn't yet and hopefully never had to.

In that particular incident I would have preferred closed wheels and a fully enclosed cockpit. But it doesn't mean we have to go down that route.

I think my general point was (and that of most people); it’s an improvement to safety, an added layer of protection, with little draw backs. It may not be pleasing aestethically and it may only save a life in 0.1% of all accidents, but when that 0.1th occurs, having it will make a 100% difference, perhaps deciding between death or not.

Also; we’ve seen some very close calls this year with accidents that IMO have shown that it’s better to have it, then not, even if perhaps by the margin of milimeters, it wasnt needed.

[strad]

it may only save a life in 0.1% of all accidents, but when that 0.1th occurs, having it will make a 100% difference, perhaps deciding between death or not.

I guess people don't understand.
With that statement I agree totally. I don't necessarily want the HALO gone. I don't even dislike it's looks that much.
What I am dead set against is people making claims that it has already proved itself.
It did make extraction more difficult and it failed to stop debris.
There may come a time where it will save a life and we'll all be glad it was there, but that day hasn't come yet.
So I think we should still be looking to improve it or find a better way and not proclaiming it the best thing since sliced bread.
Put another way...It can't rest on laurels it hasn't earned.

[Morteza]

[jjn9128]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMymLt7NOTg

Interesting video, I can't find the report anywhere on the FIA or global institute websites. Probably just sent to the press. I feel that the autosport/motorsport network are primarily responsible for the backlash against the halo, and now they're producing videos like this without any contrition for their part in the resistance to it. Kind of cheap.

Now we wait for the conspiracy theorists "the FIA are just fudging reports to justify the halo, I don't think it would have made a difference".