HALO Approved for 2018

[Manoah2u]

...
BTW, i personally found it extremely but extremely suspicious, that when we got the onboard shots of hulkenberg, that before the car actually flipped over, they cut away and never after shown the onboard shots. were they hiding something there in regards to escaping? i don't think the camera survived the rollarcoaster ride anyway, but i found it too odd that they cut to exactly that shot and then right before contact, they cut away.

or am i missing actual full footage?

Isn't this just something the editors do in case there are terminal consequences to any accident. The last thing you want is views of the cockpit in the driver's last moments strewn across the internet.

except hulk was fine, the radio confirmed that and above all, the radio feed published on tv is first checked and if needed censored, so there's a delay, it's not real-time.

[Manoah2u]

Again, that video the car has no wheels, no suspesion, no wings, no PU, no fuel tank ect.
The airbox is not even touching the ground, So add the weight of a gearbox, Engine, hybrid system with heavy battery, fuel tank, rear wheels and rear suspension then the airbox will now sit on the ground (gap to escape reduced)

Interestingly, that mockup scene shows the roll hoop off the ground which wouldn't be the case if the engine + transmission was still attached.

True, so far we don't know how a full car with Halo would rest on the ground. Though in Hulk's case the airbox wasn't touching the ground either since the car was resting on the tecpros

BTW, i personally found it extremely but extremely suspicious, that when we got the onboard shots of hulkenberg, that before the car actually flipped over, they cut away and never after shown the onboard shots. were they hiding something there in regards to escaping? i don't think the camera survived the rollarcoaster ride anyway, but i found it too odd that they cut to exactly that shot and then right before contact, they cut away.

or am i missing actual full footage?

I just watched the onboard footage from Hulkenberg's car on F1TV. It is odd, the video feed goes out almost immediately after the initial contact with Grosjean.

Hulk's onboard doesn't look much different to me than other onboards from similar accidents in the past few years?
https://youtu.be/Jc2nsX4-Q54?t=25
https://youtu.be/FMn43oSLxuc?t=16
https://youtu.be/4o9TYzGy_q0?t=20

I don't think we need to interpret too much into it. Cameras can break, they're not made to be indestructable.

you're entirely missing the point.

the video feed stops way before even contact, or at the moment of contact, with grosjean, not where he was already upside down and hitting the ground.

[Andres125sx]

Perfection does not exist, with Halo exiting the car if upside down is complicated, so in case of a fire it may be dangerous. Without Halo any crash with a car taking off the tarmac may be dangerous, so what´s safer?

IMHO, the chances to see a car upside down AND with a fire wich cannot be extinghished by marshals, are several orders of magnitude less prone to happen than a car flying around after a crash.


When Halo was approved I instantly wondered about a Hulkemberg-like situation as I´m sure Halo is a big problem for drivers to get out of the car if upside down, actually I got scared when noticed a fire on the Renault but it was extinguished easily. Meanwhile we all have seen several accidents with cars going VERY close to some helmet, so I think time has proved a car flying around driver´s helmet is easier to happen than a car upside down with a serious fire.

Inevitably, conclusions must be a car is safer with Halo than it is without.

[Tim.Wright]

I agree, I think the possibilty that someone would be caught in a fire long enough to be injured soley due to the Halo is practically negligible.

I can't even think of a recent event in open wheel racing where a fire actually made it's way to the cockpit in a manner which would injure someone.

Debris strikes are an absolutely not negligible probability as recent events have shown.

[NathanOlder]

I agree, I think the possibilty that someone would be caught in a fire long enough to be injured soley due to the Halo is practically negligible.

But I'd like the people who told me getting out wouldn't be a problem to realise they were wrong and not go on about positives outweighing negatives when thats not what anyone was questioning.

[Formula Wrong]

you're entirely missing the point.

I'm afraid I am.

the video feed stops way before even contact, or at the moment of contact, with grosjean, not where he was already upside down and hitting the ground.

It stops just after he has started flying and sure, it's a lower angle than in the other examples, but I don't see how that's "suspicious"? In other perspectives of the crash you have a great view on the car, especially the first roll, so I don't see what the FIA would want to "hide" during that additional second before the camera hits the ground. There's no standard time for when the camera fails in a crash and the feed can glitch even if the camera itself isn't completely destroyed.

[zac510]

Perfection does not exist, with Halo exiting the car if upside down is complicated, so in case of a fire it may be dangerous. Without Halo any crash with a car taking off the tarmac may be dangerous, so what´s safer?

IMHO, the chances to see a car upside down AND with a fire wich cannot be extinghished by marshals, are several orders of magnitude less prone to happen than a car flying around after a crash.


When Halo was approved I instantly wondered about a Hulkemberg-like situation as I´m sure Halo is a big problem for drivers to get out of the car if upside down, actually I got scared when noticed a fire on the Renault but it was extinguished easily. Meanwhile we all have seen several accidents with cars going VERY close to some helmet, so I think time has proved a car flying around driver´s helmet is easier to happen than a car upside down with a serious fire.

Inevitably, conclusions must be a car is safer with Halo than it is without.

Good thinking.
There's probably even more work the FIA can do to prevent fires, for example mandating a particular standard of fuel and oil hose and other design to prevent spillage, in the same way that fuel cell safety was improved so that fuel cell fires are almost nil.

[Cannonballer]

Again, that video the car has no wheels, no suspesion, no wings, no PU, no fuel tank ect.
The airbox is not even touching the ground, So add the weight of a gearbox, Engine, hybrid system with heavy battery, fuel tank, rear wheels and rear suspension then the airbox will now sit on the ground (gap to escape reduced)

Interestingly, that mockup scene shows the roll hoop off the ground which wouldn't be the case if the engine + transmission was still attached.

True, so far we don't know how a full car with Halo would rest on the ground. Though in Hulk's case the airbox wasn't touching the ground either since the car was resting on the tecpros

BTW, i personally found it extremely but extremely suspicious, that when we got the onboard shots of hulkenberg, that before the car actually flipped over, they cut away and never after shown the onboard shots. were they hiding something there in regards to escaping? i don't think the camera survived the rollarcoaster ride anyway, but i found it too odd that they cut to exactly that shot and then right before contact, they cut away.

or am i missing actual full footage?

I just watched the onboard footage from Hulkenberg's car on F1TV. It is odd, the video feed goes out almost immediately after the initial contact with Grosjean.

Hulk's onboard doesn't look much different to me than other onboards from similar accidents in the past few years?
https://youtu.be/Jc2nsX4-Q54?t=25
https://youtu.be/FMn43oSLxuc?t=16
https://youtu.be/4o9TYzGy_q0?t=20

I don't think we need to interpret too much into it. Cameras can break, they're not made to be indestructable.

I just thought it was odd because the camera footage stopped while he was in mid air and not on impact. Since the video is not stored on board the car I did not think it would lose the last second(s).

[Jolle]

Again, that video the car has no wheels, no suspesion, no wings, no PU, no fuel tank ect.
The airbox is not even touching the ground, So add the weight of a gearbox, Engine, hybrid system with heavy battery, fuel tank, rear wheels and rear suspension then the airbox will now sit on the ground (gap to escape reduced)

Interestingly, that mockup scene shows the roll hoop off the ground which wouldn't be the case if the engine + transmission was still attached.

True, so far we don't know how a full car with Halo would rest on the ground. Though in Hulk's case the airbox wasn't touching the ground either since the car was resting on the tecpros

I just watched the onboard footage from Hulkenberg's car on F1TV. It is odd, the video feed goes out almost immediately after the initial contact with Grosjean.

Hulk's onboard doesn't look much different to me than other onboards from similar accidents in the past few years?
https://youtu.be/Jc2nsX4-Q54?t=25
https://youtu.be/FMn43oSLxuc?t=16
https://youtu.be/4o9TYzGy_q0?t=20

I don't think we need to interpret too much into it. Cameras can break, they're not made to be indestructable.

I just thought it was odd because the camera footage stopped while he was in mid air and not on impact. Since the video is not stored on board the car I did not think it would lose the last second(s).

Good chance the system works with a buffer or encoder to stream it. The moment the antenna snapped, it was still processing date from one second before that.

[DiogoBrand]

I agree, I think the possibilty that someone would be caught in a fire long enough to be injured soley due to the Halo is practically negligible.

But I'd like the people who told me getting out wouldn't be a problem to realise they were wrong and not go on about positives outweighing negatives when thats not what anyone was questioning.

I don't think anyone believes the Halo isn't a problem for the driver to get out of the car. Even the FIA knows that, which is why for those tests of how fast the driver can get out of the car they have increased the minimum time. All they're saying is that a driver's integrity is far less likely to be compromised by not being able to get out of the car than it is by an object, or even a car, landing on their helmet.

[NathanOlder]

I agree, I think the possibilty that someone would be caught in a fire long enough to be injured soley due to the Halo is practically negligible.

But I'd like the people who told me getting out wouldn't be a problem to realise they were wrong and not go on about positives outweighing negatives when thats not what anyone was questioning.

I don't think anyone believes the Halo isn't a problem for the driver to get out of the car. Even the FIA knows that, which is why for those tests of how fast the driver can get out of the car they have increased the minimum time. All they're saying is that a driver's integrity is far less likely to be compromised by not being able to get out of the car than it is by an object, or even a car, landing on their helmet.

Nah, I was told by a few that there's no way you can get stuck in the car when its not on its wheels. I remember posting pictures of Senna at Suzuka, Hill in Estoril and few others if how if they had a Halo it would probably be impossible to get out. I see the positives in the Halo I was just pointing out how terrifying being in a trapped car must be. You could hear the fear in Nicos voice last weekend!

[adrianjordan]

Yep. I'm with Nathan, there were several people on here quite vocally proclaiming that getting out of an overturned car wouldn't be a problem. They're now conspicuous in their decision not to stick up for their point.

To be clear, I am not anti-halo... I've actually gotten used to the aesthetics of it... I DO think, as I said up thread, that they need a better (ie: more organised) procedure for righting an overturned car safely.

[Phil]

Then maybe Nathan (& Co.) should find those people/members and reach out to them by PM?

Seriously, there’s nothing to be accomplished here, other than a discussion evolving around the simple fact that, no, the Halo will not prevent every dangerous situation there is. Certainly, there are also flaws attached to it too - namely that exiting is more difficult. But the point of the Halo doesnt hinge on its drawback, but on the positives it brings; namely that it’s an added layer of protection against anything that comes flying and is big and heavy. Certainly, there are way more situations where the head of the driver benefits from added protection vs situations where the car flips over and lands on its top and the necessity of quick extraction.

Either way; i agree that even in the circumstance that a car is flipped over, it’s safer for the driver to remain calm and stay put until on-track help arrives then trying to get out themselves that potentially add injury to the driver himself - with or without Halo.

Even had there been no Halo attached, i’m very doubtful Hulkenberg had been able to get out of the car easily and timely.

[hollus]

Yep. I'm with Nathan, there were several people on here quite vocally proclaiming that getting out of an overturned car wouldn't be a problem. They're now conspicuous in their decision not to stick up for their point.

Do "we" have an obligation to answer or otherwise concede the point? Most people agree that the halo makes it more difficult to exit the car, certainly slower, but, probably, not impossible. But, IMHO, Hulk made the right decision not to. The car could have shifted while he did so. His HANS could have gotten entangled in a funny way. He could easily have hurt himself in an arm or something.
But was he in danger because of it? I don't think so. The comment about the hanging cow suggests to me not panic, but frustration. It is the type of comment that comes after asking your team if you should get out or not and getting a "No, stay put" for an answer. He did sound panicky about the fire, the small fire far behind him that put itself out rather quickly.
What would have happened if the fire had spread?
He would probably had decided that there was no point in discussing, and do his best to get out of there. Remember that he has fireproof overalls, a fireproof helmet, etc, etc, buying him quite a bit of time to play with. He would have probably struggled to disconnect the seat belt and Hans for about 5-10 seconds. Then he would have forcefully wiggled himself into awkward positions, and in another 10 seconds he would be awkwardly lying on the floor, unharmed except by his own extraction, just to see that 5 marshals were already at the spot and had already controlled the fire.
Or at least that's how I see it, but of course there is no way to know.

[jjn9128]

Do "we" have an obligation to answer or otherwise concede the point? Most people agree that the halo makes it more difficult to exit the car, certainly slower, but, probably, not impossible. But, IMHO, Hulk made the right decision not to. The car could have shifted while he did so. His HANS could have gotten entangled in a funny way. He could easily have hurt himself in an arm or something.
But was he in danger because of it? I don't think so. The comment about the hanging cow suggests to me not panic, but frustration. It is the type of comment that comes after asking your team if you should get out or not and getting a "No, stay put" for an answer. He did sound panicky about the fire, the small fire far behind him that put itself out rather quickly.
What would have happened if the fire had spread?
He would probably had decided that there was no point in discussing, and do his best to get out of there. Remember that he has fireproof overalls, a fireproof helmet, etc, etc, buying him quite a bit of time to play with. He would have probably struggled to disconnect the seat belt and Hans for about 5-10 seconds. Then he would have forcefully wiggled himself into awkward positions, and in another 10 seconds he would be awkwardly lying on the floor, unharmed except by his own extraction, just to see that 5 marshals were already at the spot and had already controlled the fire.
Or at least that's how I see it, but of course there is no way to know.

This^^ I feel no obligation to waste my time reiterating the same points to the same people who bring up the same points in response (fire and getting out of an overturned car - both of which I've explained ad nauseam). 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 will say though that I thought the marshals in Abu Dhabi seemed under-prepared, when Ocon stopped in the pit lane they didn't push the neutral button. When Ricciardo stopped in qualifying they seemed to push him from a position of safety back towards the track. But this is nothing to do with the halo.