Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Xwang wrote:Why not to use two lateral pylon as the reb bull aligned with the mirrors supports, instead of the central one, keeping the upper bar?
Because that would not provide the best frontal protection to the head, which is the intent of the halo in the first place.
The intent is "to be seen to be doing something". The halo will protect against a number of situations but, sadly, the next fatality will be in a situation that the halo is useless. For example, a broken suspension arm coming down vertically as a car rolls over and above another car.
So far as preventing the ingress of damaging items, a full canopy would be much better.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Of course, but his question was why the halo featured 1 central pylon and not 2 lateral ones like the canopy. Mind I also choose the words "frontal protection".
turbof1 wrote:I have to say the new halo looks a bit more elegant compared to the previous incarnation. It blends more in with the natural lines of the car. I think I could get used to this.
Agree, and it now looks posible for drivers to go out of the car if it´s upside down as there´s more space below the air inlet, unlike the original design wich I think could have been catastrophic, but it will still be a very difficult maneouver for them
Hopefully we will never find out
I still think a fully closed canopy would have been much better on all apects, safety wise and also aesthetically
Xwang wrote:Why not to use two lateral pylon as the reb bull aligned with the mirrors supports, instead of the central one, keeping the upper bar?
Because that would not provide the best frontal protection to the head, which is the intent of the halo in the first place.
The intent is "to be seen to be doing something". The halo will protect against a number of situations but, sadly, the next fatality will be in a situation that the halo is useless. For example, a broken suspension arm coming down vertically as a car rolls over and above another car.
So far as preventing the ingress of damaging items, a full canopy would be much better.
Any fatality is because safety equipment at that time isn't enough. Headrests, seatbelts, helmets, etc, all have this "flaw". But since the introduction of all of them they have been saving lives of drivers in big numbers.
"Being hit on the head with something substantial" is in motor sports is one of the biggest couses of being killed in the last ten years, it would be logical do do something about it.
Nobody questioned VSC after Jules death? Or the zylon strip after Massa's accident?
We also had plenty of near misses the last few decades. Just watch Brundles head on the famous Verstappen crash in 1994. Or Alonso's head almost being chopped off at Spa a couple of years ago (or more recently by Kimi). Schumacher in a Mercedes almost head butting a Force India.
This, with all the incidents in other racing series make it a "when" not an "if" anymore.
Canopies look cool, but they require some kind of air conditioning what makes it more complicated and heavy. A thick Lexan screen can and will effect the drivers view.
The last time somebody needed to jump from a burning car was in 1994, but refueling is banned. The time before that was 1989. The danger of being trapped under a car where you have to get out of without help is almost non existent anymore. Even with a very big crash the rescue teams take their time to get drivers out slowly.
Even if F1 passes on the Halo, I hope, for all parents watching their kids racing in f3, f4, formula BMW, etc, that they all will implement a halo device. It's one of the cheaperst, most easy to implement safety features that won't make racing any slower.
Well, with the halo he would have climbed out of his car 3 seconds slower, well within the safety limits of his suit.
With a canopy, trapped in a bubble of smoke, it would have been a different story (Heidfelt would be no more). Same goes for Berger in '89. He was unconscious. The marshalls put out the fire and reletive slowly got him out of the car (way faster then they would do now). Under a bubble he would have suffocated.
To be fair this fire was caused by a failure with an odd exhaust solution no longer permitted. Does not mean there will never be another fire however.
I guess the bigger issue will be extracting the driver if there is a fire and the driver is incapacitated. I would prefer the aero shield solution myself.
ergenomic wrote:To be fair this fire was caused by a failure with an odd exhaust solution no longer permitted. Does not mean there will never be another fire however.
I guess the bigger issue will be extracting the driver if there is a fire and the driver is incapacitated. I would prefer the aero shield solution myself.
In that case, like now, without any shielding, they first put out the fire and then help the driver. But first aid will then be inside the car.
You could even say that in that kind of situations the Halo provides more acces to the driver then a screen.
Other recent crashes where to Halo would have made it way less scary: Sainz in Russia (plowing under the tires) and Heidfeldt again, in the first formula E race in his last corner crash with Prost. I saw that one live, and was convinced he went head first into the barrier (top of his head first).
aeroshied, provided there is no avoiding on this device becoming installed, is imho the only way to go. canopies at this point are simply too dangerous.
furthermore, full canopies cause a multitude of side and after effects.
not just that the entire open-cockpit concept of F1 goes out the window, essentially killing F1 into a different class, rather like a LMP class open wheeler,
but for safety concerns, there are for starters a bunch of things to work out.
obviously, getting out fast and safe is a concern. one may 'defend' this with looking at LMP class incidents, but the bodywork of the entire vehicle is rather
different, which causes it to position itself differently.
second of all, the potential fire or smoke hazard is one to concider. it would demand the need for a automatic fire extinguishing system inside the cockpit,
aswell as oxygen supply for the driver in case of non-exiting. it doesnt take much brain to realise this will cost a huge sum of money, and a huge investment
in time, development and even more, correct and safe implementation of rules that would be clear and easy for all, not to mention guidelines in case of
emergency.
and then we haven't even delved into aerodynamic and performance influences. current f1 cars are built completely on 3 basic principles:
1) open wheel, open cockpit
2) safety cell (monocoque) and impact structures
3) engine and aero formula
if you change the open cockpit formula, it will cause a huge effect on aerodynamics. which will A) demand a total overhaul of the current f1 car design,
and B) cost insane sums of money from research and development alone.
the safey cell and impact structures will need change too which again, will cause significant design changes aswell as financial repercussions.
the engine formula will have an impact too, as the 'fuel consumption' is something to keep in mind, and then there's the issue of cockpit heating due to
the closed environment in case of a full canopy, which ultimately will lead to a re-arrangement of the ICE and electric packaging, paired with a cooling system
for the driver. which, again also will affect aerodynamics.
the only conclusion coming from this is that, in a time where teams struggle financially especially due to constant changing rules, there will be an insanely larger
financial weight put on teams thanks to these devices, with the canopy being the biggest effect, the aeroscreen the mid one, and the halo the smallest one possibly.
and all that, thanks to a philosophy that is based upon already flawed thesis'.
Again, the Bianchi incident had no different results had there been a halo, aeroscreen, or canopy. all would lack strenght to survive such impact (not to mention the
possibility the halo verticle pole and top part would have potentially crushed bianchi's face in his helmet, but above all, bianchi's death was a result of the extremely
fast stopping time of the car due to the contact with the recovery vehicle. the problem was not bianchi's car, the problem was the recovery vehicle in it's path,
but that wasnt the cause, the cause was there was a race going on whilst it was unsafe to have it still going on. it should have ended 10 laps before, especially concidering
it should not have started due to the typhoon anyway.
the massa incident was a freak incident, and if i'm correct, helmets have been improved afterwards, so one might wonder whether a repeat would still have similar results.
the massa incident could also be avoided by having a higher windscreen in front of the driver, like the classic cars used to have. a windscreen a tad higher would have taken
the first impact, sufficiently lowering the velocity and energy carried by the object and then having lost enough energy not to penetrate the helmet anymore like it did with
massa back then.
wheels flying around is not an issue either as they are heavily ruled to not being able to disattach in an incident. the extreme alonso crash showed just how far this technology
has reached having all the wheels connected still, so a loose wheel is no longer an issue, so what are we talking about then still?
cars colliding into eachother and possibly making (helmet) contact? that might be the only one, and whilst it in all those years never actually happened, it might indeed be a freak
possibility. would that fall under the catogery comes with the job? i dont know, but it doesnt hurt to investigate a decent solution.
bakc in 1996, when the head protection was first regulated, the protection was much higher. personally, i believe these high headprotections already take out a rather big potential
of wheels or other parts of the car striking the cockpit area. if not implementing high protection, there's always the possibilty of having the driver change it's seating position to a less
'flat' angle and a more 'seated' angle causing the driver to be positioned a bit further back and the possibility of putting protection bars to the side more adequately. it would also
increase impact structure distance providing cars maintain the same length.
wings at the cockpit side like the 2007 ferrari had (fighter jet style) can also be used to provide safety features concidering they woudl then contain impact structure qualities.
the same could be said for enlarging the height of the airbox, and perhaps putting 'ears' alongside them like they did untill 2008.
imho, there is a variety of options available for these issues rather then killing the entire character of the class.
moreso, what is the biggest cause for these dangers? it has been seen that in the pirelli-era, there have been a lot more dangerous crashes. i did not forget exploding tires, tires ripped to the canvas, and sudden tire failures like that of vettel this year and last year in spa. if there is any place where safety is a concern, it is the tires first and foremost.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
