HALO Approved for 2018

[strad]

""It's not our job to insure the car sounds nice or smells good or looks pretty, we are shark like in our purpose, we exist only to make the car go faster. The stop watch is our master.""
Adrian Newey

[Restomaniac]

""It's not our job to insure the car sounds nice or smells good or looks pretty, we are shark like in our purpose, we exist only to make the car go faster. The stop watch is our master.""
Adrian Newey

Indeed. I'm not saying the cars need to be pretty and being honest they aren't.
People then complain about the halo when there is the eyesore running down the sides. Even without the halo they would be a mess.

[NathanOlder]

Of course I feel the Halo is horrific to look at, and yes I'd say thats the biggest issue for me. I'm just saying its a step to moving away from open wheel/open cockpit. And surely thats something none of us want.

I think the bargeboard area is a work of art personally. From above they look like something you would expect to see in star wars, a space fighter or something. I dont know 1 person who can say the halo looks good.

I think my whole argument has continued because a few members wouldnt accept that Halo could be bad in any single way.

[Manoah2u]

""It's not our job to insure the car sounds nice or smells good or looks pretty, we are shark like in our purpose, we exist only to make the car go faster. The stop watch is our master.""
Adrian Newey

true, but car ugliness is rather a side-effect from bad decision-making from those whom write the rules, but the very people that write/change the rules do that / change the rules because of a cause - and in many cases those causes are because designers/engineers push the limits further and futher ( which is their job offcourse ) which then get ( unintended ) side effects.

So it turns into a vicious circle where things keep feeding eachother.

It's not the responsibility of guys like Newey to make cars that look pretty, but at the same time, guys like newey are also the reason why the cars look ugly.

for example - a jump to the side here - the (super) high noses were a result of advancing aero benefits and designs in F1, stuff people like newey persue and are 'responsible' for. that then resulted in the possible danger of drivers getting headbutted by a f1 car if the car would skid on top of the nose long enough in 'freak circumstances', whereas a steep nose (instead of a horizontal top) would avoid such a thing. the incident between Schumacher-Liuzzi was a discussion point there, both resulting in the then 'knee jerk' reaction in lowering the tips of the nose (which then saw the most hideous f1 cars ever with botched up platypus and (double) phallus nosecones ), aswell as the first steps towards the halo (which we see now).

So in a sense, exactly these guys are the reason why we have these ugly f1 cars.

Now let it be clear that i'm not attacking Newey, Pomodrou, or any designer at all. But we neither shouldn't be blind in why the cars are how they are today.

I also find it rather hypocritical that the fans /f1 world started commenting a few years ago that aerodynamics had too much influence on F1 (when RedBull was dominating for example). That got changed and then engines played a role again like in the older days when the V6 got introduced, and what happened?

Aero guys started complaining that engines now play too big of an influence in F1. It lasted really short before the complains came again.

Like i said, it's a vicious circle that keeps going on and on. And if for some reason Aero and Engines are 'balanced' then Pirelli/the tire manufacturer gets 'blamed' that they have too much influence in the sport.

It's a chaos of ego's, personalities, businesses and quite frankly, everybody who has something to win/lose, and every decision is made around that - but you can't please everybody. So there will always be 'losers' when it comes to it. Sometimes aero guys, sometimes engine guys, sometimes drivers, sometimes teams, sometimes sponsors, sometimes fans.

F1 is 'a machine' that will remain in motion, and so will the rules. it won't remain static, it can't. and so, there will be changes. for better, and for worse.

the halo is, and always was, inevitable. it just took untill now for it to happen. aeroscreen/indyscreen will be inevitable just as much, even if it's going to be rather an evolution of both the halo and the screen. and then the canopy will become inevitable, which, also will be an evolution. even though i'm opposed to it to the fullest but open wheels inevitably are going to 'pass' too. Formula E's cars most certainly will be more or less where the design eventually will head out to. combustion engines, at one point, also will become obsolete or 'outgrown', as much as i hate that. it is, inevitable. the only thing that might come into the mix at some point are hydrogen fuel cells, but fact still is, those are not 'combustion' engines so either way - that will become extinct sooner or later. whether we like it, or not.

so as i said - we can't have it all. does the halo make f1 cars look uglier? sure thing yes. does it improve life chances for a driver by a degree? hell yes, by a huge degree actually. so it's a very defendable choice, whether it's knee-jerk or not. we just have to come to terms with that.

now what i do find 'problematic' is the 'implementation' of such devices, and agree that it thus resembles a knee-jerk reaction; its another 'object' put into the sport. there is no real 'coherence' or fluency in all of it.

i still would really like to see a fully independent investigation from both engineers, designers, and fans in how a f1 car could look like, if you'd maintain the demand for driver protection and how a 'safety cell' could / should look like including a halo, neck protection, side protection, head protection, extraction, and then see what would happen with the design built around of that with a free vision.

a vision where you are free to use open-wheeled solution (preferably offcourse), covered wheels, ground effects, v6,v10, v8, i4, i5, turbo engines, wings or wingless, and so on.

[Just_a_fan]

""It's not our job to insure the car sounds nice or smells good or looks pretty, we are shark like in our purpose, we exist only to make the car go faster. The stop watch is our master.""
Adrian Newey

Adrian, being British, would have said "to ensure", of course...

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Seriously, however, I can't believe this argument is still going on.
A: Yes, the halo is a less than pretty device.
B: Yes, people don't like it.

No, the FIA won't remove it just because of A and B.

Can we move on now? Please?

[Manoah2u]

I think the halo actually is being defended by the simple fact that all the bargeboards and wings around the sidepods doesn't make the cars look any prettier at all either. sort of that it's not really a solid base to complain about the halo not being pretty while the fact is the f1 cars aren't pretty at all to look at anyway, which is very true.

also, i must admit though, though i think early 90's F1 cars looked far more stunning than those of today, i also started noticing just what deathtraps they really were and that it was really just a matter of time before those horrible accidents in imola 1994 happened.

if you look at the intensity of safety in f1 today, looking at the tub thickness, the tests, the protection, and then comparing it to a 1990 f1 car, is just mind boggling, especially if you see onboards of those cars steaming past slow cars in qually for example.

[strad]

Quite frankly my quoting of Newey had only to do with the attractiveness because his job is not to make it pretty just fast.
It is the job of rules makers to make them safe, not pretty or fast.
I'm not sure there is anybody whose job is to make them pretty.

[Restomaniac]

Of course I feel the Halo is horrific to look at, and yes I'd say thats the biggest issue for me. I'm just saying its a step to moving away from open wheel/open cockpit. And surely thats something none of us want.

I think the bargeboard area is a work of art personally. From above they look like something you would expect to see in star wars, a space fighter or something. I dont know 1 person who can say the halo looks good.

I think my whole argument has continued because a few members wouldnt accept that Halo could be bad in any single way.

Thanks for the honesty. As for closed cockpit? I doubt it, I seriously do.

You like them for the technical aspect which I get but they are still a mess to look at. Close your eyes and think of a classically beautiful F1 car and in most cases for most people it's a car from yesteryear with stunning lines and not a car full of winglets down its side.
That's the irony. People scream 'Eww look ate the halo' when the sides of the car are just a mess as well which is ignored.

Can I be honest? It seems to me to be continuing due to some still finding reasons to find fault (due to the ultimate problem of it's look) and when they are disproven another reason is found. Let us use the argument that wheels never come off as an example of long list of reasons for the halo to be not needed. TBH it's a double sided coin as others cannot accept that it's not as bad as they are making out either.

Ultimately in the litigious world we live in the very second the FIA got a report stating that the halo would make the drivers safer their choice on the subject disappeared. After being bitten like that I doubt they are so stupid as to ask for a report about closed cockpits for the now obvious reason.

[johnny comelately]

Of course I feel the Halo is horrific to look at, and yes I'd say thats the biggest issue for me. I'm just saying its a step to moving away from open wheel/open cockpit. And surely thats something none of us want.

I think the bargeboard area is a work of art personally. From above they look like something you would expect to see in star wars, a space fighter or something. I dont know 1 person who can say the halo looks good.

I think my whole argument has continued because a few members wouldnt accept that Halo could be bad in any single way.

Thanks for the honesty. As for closed cockpit? I doubt it, I seriously do.

You like them for the technical aspect which I get but they are still a mess to look at. Close your eyes and think of a classically beautiful F1 car and in most cases for most people it's a car from yesteryear with stunning lines and not a car full of winglets down its side.
That's the irony. People scream 'Eww look ate the halo' when the sides of the car are just a mess as well which is ignored.

Can I be honest? It seems to me to be continuing due to some still finding reasons to find fault (due to the ultimate problem of it's look) and when they are disproven another reason is found. Let us use the argument that wheels never come off as an example of long list of reasons for the halo to be not needed. TBH it's a double sided coin as others cannot accept that it's not as bad as they are making out either.

With respect, I ask: What would you race with, having some skin in the game?

[Restomaniac]

Of course I feel the Halo is horrific to look at, and yes I'd say thats the biggest issue for me. I'm just saying its a step to moving away from open wheel/open cockpit. And surely thats something none of us want.

I think the bargeboard area is a work of art personally. From above they look like something you would expect to see in star wars, a space fighter or something. I dont know 1 person who can say the halo looks good.

I think my whole argument has continued because a few members wouldnt accept that Halo could be bad in any single way.

Thanks for the honesty. As for closed cockpit? I doubt it, I seriously do.

You like them for the technical aspect which I get but they are still a mess to look at. Close your eyes and think of a classically beautiful F1 car and in most cases for most people it's a car from yesteryear with stunning lines and not a car full of winglets down its side.
That's the irony. People scream 'Eww look ate the halo' when the sides of the car are just a mess as well which is ignored.

Can I be honest? It seems to me to be continuing due to some still finding reasons to find fault (due to the ultimate problem of it's look) and when they are disproven another reason is found. Let us use the argument that wheels never come off as an example of long list of reasons for the halo to be not needed. TBH it's a double sided coin as others cannot accept that it's not as bad as they are making out either.

With respect, I ask: What would you race with, having some skin in the game?

I'm not pro-halo if that's what you're asking.

[johnny comelately]

Thanks for the honesty. As for closed cockpit? I doubt it, I seriously do.

You like them for the technical aspect which I get but they are still a mess to look at. Close your eyes and think of a classically beautiful F1 car and in most cases for most people it's a car from yesteryear with stunning lines and not a car full of winglets down its side.
That's the irony. People scream 'Eww look ate the halo' when the sides of the car are just a mess as well which is ignored.

Can I be honest? It seems to me to be continuing due to some still finding reasons to find fault (due to the ultimate problem of it's look) and when they are disproven another reason is found. Let us use the argument that wheels never come off as an example of long list of reasons for the halo to be not needed. TBH it's a double sided coin as others cannot accept that it's not as bad as they are making out either.

With respect, I ask: What would you race with, having some skin in the game?

I'm not pro-halo if that's what you're asking.

Not a trick question, I am really just wondering what your preference would be?
Not inferring anything, more of a survey imagining you were in the cockpit.
I did ask this previously in the thread (for everyone) and astoundingly not one answer

[johnny comelately]

I think the halo actually is being defended by the simple fact that all the bargeboards and wings around the sidepods doesn't make the cars look any prettier at all either. sort of that it's not really a solid base to complain about the halo not being pretty while the fact is the f1 cars aren't pretty at all to look at anyway, which is very true.

also, i must admit though, though i think early 90's F1 cars looked far more stunning than those of today, i also started noticing just what deathtraps they really were and that it was really just a matter of time before those horrible accidents in imola 1994 happened.

if you look at the intensity of safety in f1 today, looking at the tub thickness, the tests, the protection, and then comparing it to a 1990 f1 car, is just mind boggling, especially if you see onboards of those cars steaming past slow cars in qually for example.

I think quite a few of the current F1 cars are pretty beautiful: the Mercedes, McLaren (now its a mango colour) and even the Sauber. I don't think its livery and form as the Mercedes livery while subtly attractive is probably lacking in slap your face pizzazz for F1, so the form it is. I see the form is getting very animal like, particularly go fast birds (obviously) and that is the opinion without one drop of Fixall cocktail

[Restomaniac]

With respect, I ask: What would you race with, having some skin in the game?

I'm not pro-halo if that's what you're asking.

Not a trick question, I am really just wondering what your preference would be?
Not inferring anything, more of a survey imagining you were in the cockpit.
I did ask this previously in the thread (for everyone) and astoundingly not one answer

I'm not pro-halo however I can see the wood for the trees.The anti-halo option vanished when the report was read by the FIA which is the key point.

Like it or not the halo is here due to safety and even if it's only 5% safer then the FIA cannot risk not implementing it.

[NathanOlder]

Can I be honest? It seems to me to be continuing due to some still finding reasons to find fault (due to the ultimate problem of it's look) and when they are disproven another reason is found.

If I look back to the beginning my original problem was a driver not getting out if it was upside-down in the gravel and this one has not been cleared yet people dismiss it as if they have seen someone climb out in the gravel. Then people were saying F1 cars never catch fire and havent caught fire through an accident since Berger at Imola, so I posted a video of Schumacher crashing and catching on fire just over 10 years ago but that didnt count for some reason.

I know this is a million to 1 shot but, if a car is upside down, dug into the gravel and possibly on fire at stavelot what would happen ? I'd rather have been Henry Surtees than Roger Williamson every single day of the week .

[Jolle]

Can I be honest? It seems to me to be continuing due to some still finding reasons to find fault (due to the ultimate problem of it's look) and when they are disproven another reason is found.

If I look back to the beginning my original problem was a driver not getting out if it was upside-down in the gravel and this one has not been cleared yet people dismiss it as if they have seen someone climb out in the gravel. Then people were saying F1 cars never catch fire and havent caught fire through an accident since Berger at Imola, so I posted a video of Schumacher crashing and catching on fire just over 10 years ago but that didnt count for some reason.

I know this is a million to 1 shot but, if a car is upside down, dug into the gravel and possibly on fire at stavelot what would happen ? I'd rather have been Henry Surtees than Roger Williamson every single day of the week .

Let’s get into that scenario. What would the procedure be last year and what now? Officially I mean. In case of any emergency it’s protocol that the danger is removed and then the medical team extract the driver.

This would mean first putting out the fires, righten the car, stabilize the driver and with care and time extract the driver with his seat.

This protocol hasn’t changed. That you don’t agree with the first responders protocols (on and off track) is something very different.