Will you boycott F1 next year because of the Halo?Formula 1

[TenEightyOne]

Exactly.

The FIA have long showed their incompetency in governing the sport. They regularly approve parts to be used, then outlaw them (mass damper on the Renault for example).

You need a better insight into how the stewarding works. The parts were allowed to race pending a full investigation at a higher level. Ultimately they were found to be "moveable aerodynamics". The whole process was transparent.

At times their actions are amateur to say the least - Remember Mercedes test-gate ? They gave a team written permission to run a test, when everyone else found out they tried to punish the team and got left with egg on their face.

The permission was qualified, not absolute. Mercedes accepted that they were very much in the wrong and waived their rights to any and all appeals. No case there.

They don't apply rules consistently - track limits a prime example.

Every track is different and therefore for every track the guidance and application of boundaries varies. Surely you've gathered that after all these years?

Their competency with technical matters is laughable - take the recent issue with wheels tethers on the STR. "This tether shouldn't be like this" "Well, you approved them for use like that" "Oh, did we ? hmm maybe we should look at that". I mean, really ? these guys are scrutineering cars and they don't even know what is and isn't an approved part ?

The rules didn't make explicit to the scrutineers that knots were present as part of homologation. That was cleared up and fixed. You really think that questions "their competency with technical matters" in as wide a sense as you seem to apply it? Where do you think much of the FIA technical information for each sport comes from?

And now they are forcing a stupid invention on to the cars under the premise of "safety" - yet it would have made no positive difference to any crash in the last 25 years (possibly longer).

I'm sorry, but that strikes me as bollocks. Would it have saved Surtees? Mitigated in Villota's fatal accident?

They are desperate for us to accept this as "the best solution"

The only working solution right now. You should break out AutoCAD quick and fix the problem.

yet have not really told us what problem they are "solving".

Surely you can find that filed under "the bleeding obvious"?

The "solution" is not needed for safety reasons, but political. There is the ongoing Bianchi lawsuit (which is probably the prime reason to force halo in for 2018). There is also Jean Todt who despite being FIA president has done precisely **** all for the sport since being elected. If you look around you'll find that he's far too busy giving speeches at the UN, EU or anyone else who'll listen about road safety.

The FIA isn't F1, you may be confusing the two. Well spotted on "political" reasons though. F1 has to have a body that writes and ratifies rules or it doesn't go racing. On any day.

He is clearly eyeing up a political career and "solving" head protection safety in F1 helps him along that road, he can now go and talk about how they've stopped racing drivers being injured, it doesn't matter what the device is, how good it is or if it even improves safety - provided he make a speech around the thing it doesn't matter what it is or what it does. He doesn't give a flying **** about F1.

Are we talking about the same Jean Todt, one of F1's most successful ever team principals? That Jean Todt? You'd prefer who? Mosley? Ballestre?

If the FIA want to promote road safety, thats great, crack on, off you go. I see no reason for them to be governing any motorsport - most of their members are breakdown services and caravanning clubs. They simply are not relevant to F1.

Who should underwrite the rules and oversee technical legality of equipment and tracks? What would make that new body acceptable to insurers?

I'll leave you with a gif of FP1 yesterday. Hamilton doing an egress test. the FIA have bent the rules to extend the permitted time to get out from 5 to (IIRC) 8 seconds. Granted, Hamilton is not rushing himself but just look how difficult it is to get out, even with the aid of a step.



The other thought that comes to mind with this is that if the ERS system is not safe, drivers are instructed to leave the car without touching the car and ground at the same time. Right now they stand up, step out on to the nose and jump clear. Halo makes that impossible. So how, exactly is the driver meant to leave the car ?

Err... take the halo off? It will presumably work the same way as the bit they take off now?

 

[desmodan]

Can the halo be removed by the driver at the side of the track ?
I assumed it was part of the vehicle structure , I wouldn't have thought that a clip in part would provide the necessary protection ?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Definitely don't see F1 dying any time soon. Let alone because of a piece of carbon around the cockpit. Yes, the halo isn't the best solution, but the FIA needed to put something in place immediately, and they couldn't have done it with the aeroscreen or the shield. I think everyone here would rather see either of the other two over the halo, but the point stands that from a liability standpoint, if someone next year does get hurt, and the halo, by some chance, could have protected them, what would the FIA do then? Because then F1 would really be in trouble.

You have the data on that? Because I can't really say with 100% certainty that this is the case. A single instillation lap from one driver isn't a proper test. If I ran a single test in my respective engineering field on something, that didn't have complete failure then I didn't do my job properly. In other words the shield didn't fail, it just was given a disapproving remark by Vettel during a slow instillation lap. Now it's fine if distortion happened, that clearly needs to be fixed, but to say no more testing on it (as far as we can see) for the rest of the season on it, is a bad show.

The argument that has been made is that the FIA needed/wanted something by 2018. And since the halo had the most testing done of all the suggested head protection so far it was picked before the halfway, so teams would be aware for development purposes. One team has already claimed that the call is potentially going to delay their car's release.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/08/19/f1-fanatic-round-up-halo-could-delay-force-indias-2018-car/

So the fear is tires, the problem with that is the only way a tire would come off is if a team improperly put it on, and most times that ends up being a danger to the people on pit lane. Outside that drivers typically know before they make it out or far on the track if a tire hasn't been correctly put on. The wheel tether redesign was done to prevent the most likely situation of tires flying at drivers, and that's due to accidents. Which the mechanics on that dictate that it's largely unlikely for tires to come undone. With a tensile strength of 70kN being the limit and supposedly a safety factor 1.2 (meaning they'll actually fail higher than that), and then adding the fact their is multiple tethers. It quickly comes apparent that current safety measures are pretty stout when it comes to ensuring tires do not end up in the path of drivers. So the real safety from head protection should then be more about overall protection from anything that can't be localized like various debris.

Also when one does the math on the tire test by the FIA and then takes what Whitting said that the Halo protects again all objects including cars, it's a bit hard to understand how. Because the video provided says that the testing done was to ensure a tire wouldn't harm a driver and that the aeroscreen didn't hold up to what they wanted. So what concerns me is the lack of the maximum threshold so far given to what the halo can withstand.
@H20HYBRID_GT what do you mean stronger, reinforced carbon is far stronger than steel when designed in a way where the axis the force or moment applied is in question. So when the FIA released evidence showing the Halo standing up to a load from a flying tire at their prescribed speed of 225kph it proved that it was quite capable of withstanding. They tested many angles supposedly to ensure the safety.

 

[DriveSpark]

You need a better insight into how the stewarding works. The parts were allowed to race pending a full investigation at a higher level. Ultimately they were found to be "moveable aerodynamics". The whole process was transparent.

The fact remains they permitted it and later banned it.

The permission was qualified, not absolute. Mercedes accepted that they were very much in the wrong and waived their rights to any and all appeals. No case there.

Rubbish. The FIA gave permission and were sent away from the WMSC with a flea in their ear after they overturned the penalty the FIA gave to Mercedes.

Every track is different and therefore for every track the guidance and application of boundaries varies. Surely you've gathered that after all these years?

Well done for being so condescending. The rules are quite clear, a driver should not leave the track and gain an advantage. If a driver is running off track (penalised or not) they are gaining an advantage, or they wouldn't do it.

The only working solution right now. You should break out AutoCAD quick and fix the problem.

What problem? the one that halo (allegedly) fixes or the one that shield (allegedly) fixes ?

The FIA isn't F1, you may be confusing the two. Well spotted on "political" reasons though. F1 has to have a body that writes and ratifies rules or it doesn't go racing. On any day.

When did I say that the FIA is F1 ?
Yes, there is a process to formulate rules, all of which can be subverted by the FIA on safety grounds.

Are we talking about the same Jean Todt, one of F1's most successful ever team principals? That Jean Todt? You'd prefer who? Mosley? Ballestre?

And maybe you can explain exactly what he's done for F1 whilst in control of the FIA if he's such a wonderful guy have do the job ?

Err... take the halo off? It will presumably work the same way as the bit they take off now?

Right, so we have a crashed car at the side of a track in the middle of a race that the driver can't get out of. If the 2018 halo can be removed as per the current test ones a marshal will need a tool to remove the halo, allowing the driver to exit. This of course mandates identical fitting points and hardware on all cars and the marshal to somehow be insulated from the ground whilst he removes the device to let the driver out. Yeah sounds like a great idea.

I have no idea what has annoyed you so much but I find your replies rude and condescending.

 

[DriveSpark]

Can the halo be removed by the driver at the side of the track ?
I assumed it was part of the vehicle structure , I wouldn't have thought that a clip in part would provide the necessary protection ?

Currently the halo can be unbolted from the cars. If this will be the case or not next year I don't know.

I think the mechanics can remove them fairly quickly whilst in the garage currently, but they are a true "add on" right now, I would guess that the 2018 ones will be similar, given the amount of time they have to incorporate them. 2019 might be different though, especially as they learn how to use them as an aero device (teams will be allowed to add a 20mm fairing to the top from next year, you can expect this to be an area of development through next year).

 

[FoRiZon]

Huge amount of people used to say they'll boycott F1 for changing the engine to V6 Turbo.

Yeah that boycott sure does a thing /s.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The fact remains they permitted it and later banned it.

Normal practice when technical legality is in doubt. As I said, you should have gathered that (and lots of things) about how and why things are done in F1.

Rubbish. The FIA gave permission and were sent away from the WMSC with a flea in their ear after they overturned the penalty the FIA gave to Mercedes.

Sources required for Mercedes not being banned from the 3-day YDT and for the WSMC no longer being part of the FIA.

The rules are quite clear, a driver should not leave the track and gain an advantage. If a driver is running off track (penalised or not) they are gaining an advantage, or they wouldn't do it.

How many complaints have you made to the FIA's ethics committee? You're free to, you know.

What problem? the one that halo (allegedly) fixes or the one that shield (allegedly) fixes ?

I really cannot understand why you think potentially fatal head injuries aren't a problem?

What would you do as the regulatory ratifying body if you have a working head protection device available that you fail to mandate before it transpires that a driver is killed by flying debris? The answer is obvious, you probably don't need to give it.

When did I say that the FIA is F1 ?

You implied that Todt should solely work for F1 - certainly on no FIA safety project (once again fatal accident incidences seem of no concern to you) and said that F1 was just a puppet for the FIA.

And maybe you can explain exactly what he's done for F1 whilst in control of the FIA if he's such a wonderful guy have do the job ?

So no new tracks have been ratified, no regulation changes... the sport remains exactly as it was when Mosley was caught "at it"?

Right, so we have a crashed car at the side of a track in the middle of a race that the driver can't get out of. If the 2018 halo can be removed as per the current test ones a marshal will need a tool to remove the halo, allowing the driver to exit. This of course mandates identical fitting points and hardware on all cars and the marshal to somehow be insulated from the ground whilst he removes the device to let the driver out. Yeah sounds like a great idea.

Marshalls are already equipped to deal with "live cars" (@Jimlaad43 will be able to say more on that than me) and big crashes where the driver requires assistance to leave the cockpit will always happen. As you note the egress time is 8s, that's something that's an integral part of the halo specification.

Here are the questions you didn't answer earlier:

Technical Info: Where do you think much of the FIA technical information for each sport comes from?

Halo: Would it have saved Surtees? Mitigated in Villota's fatal accident?

Rules: Who should underwrite the rules and oversee technical legality of equipment and tracks? What would make that new body acceptable to insurers?

 

[Jimlaad43]

If a driver is trapped in the car, marshals will try to get them out if possible. If the halo is keeping them in, yes, you will have to wait for a rescue unit to turn up with cutting equipment to cut it off.

Is this something that we hear people complaining about in touring cars or WEC? No. It's the same principal and if you aren't going to complain about it in one sport, dont complain about it in another. The FIA do know what they're doing (as much as we like to complain that they aren't), and will have already studied and answered these questions in private themselves.

 

[aarror]

If a driver is trapped in the car, marshals will try to get them out if possible. If the halo is keeping them in, yes, you will have to wait for a rescue unit to turn up with cutting equipment to cut it off.

Is this something that we hear people complaining about in touring cars or WEC? No. It's the same principal and if you aren't going to complain about it in one sport, dont complain about it in another. The FIA do know what they're doing (as much as we like to complain that they aren't), and will have already studied and answered these questions in private themselves.

GT and Prototype cars have multiple large egress points (both doors and for GT cars a roof hatch as well), meaning there is almost no chance of a situation where a driver cannot be extracted with relative ease by the medical team. With Halo F1 cars will have a single, very restricted egress point which will make it much more difficult, particularly if the car is upside down. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

But more importantly, you seem to be missing the point. Halo is a "safety" device that sacrifices safety in a frequent scenario for safety in a rarely occurring scenario. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 open wheel head injuries since I have started watching racing that Halo would have helped with, and countless situations where an injured driver needed to be extracted from a car. James Hinchcliffe would likely have died if his Indycar had Halo as the safety team would have had to waste time cutting it off to get him out. As is he survived by minutes.

 

[Jimlaad43]

GT and Prototype cars have multiple large egress points (both doors and for GT cars a roof hatch as well), meaning there is almost no chance of a situation where a driver cannot be extracted with relative ease by the medical team. With Halo F1 cars will have a single, very restricted egress point which will make it much more difficult, particularly if the car is upside down. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

But more importantly, you seem to be missing the point. Halo is a "safety" device that sacrifices safety in a frequent scenario for safety in a rarely occurring scenario. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 open wheel head injuries since I have started watching racing that Halo would have helped with, and countless situations where an injured driver needed to be extracted from a car. James Hinchcliffe would likely have died if his Indycar had Halo as the safety team would have had to waste time cutting it off to get him out. As is he survived by minutes.

They may have multiple ways to get them out, but a time will come when someone has to be cut out, regardless of what there is otherwise. You have said 3 reasons for it and only mentioned 1 against it. You realise that you can get people out of a car like Hinchcliffe even with the Halo.

 

[aarror]

They may have multiple ways to get them out, but a time will come when someone has to be cut out, regardless of what there is otherwise.

The point remains that it's far, far less likely with multiple egress points. And people in the industry are working on ways to improve extraction, as the addition of the mandatory roof hatch in recent years shows.

You realise that you can get people out of a car like Hinchcliffe even with the Halo.

Yes, but it takes more time. And in a situation like Hinchcliffe's time was everything. It's very difficult to remove an injured person from a vehicle, especially an open wheeler as the driver is in an awkward sitting position. The Halo restricts access to the cockpit, and forces the driver to be extracted out of a smaller, higher up opening. This not only makes extraction more difficult and time consuming, but in the case of a back or neck injury has potential to exacerbate the injury.

You have said 3 reasons for it and only mentioned 1 against it

Of the 3 I could think of, two are suspect. But I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt and including all cases where it may have helped. (Forgot about Hinch getting hit in the head by a wing endplate, so let's bump it to 4). Cases against it include pretty much every time a car catches fire, or a driver has to be rushed to hospital, and I didn't feel like listing all of those. I chose Hinchcliffe's crash simply because it was the most extreme example. The others are likely non-fatal, but the extraction problems posed by halo take them from dangerous to life threatening situations. Ultimately, I don't think it provides enough of a step forward in one area to justify the step back it provides in another.

In summary, I've yet to see you or anyone else come up with a convincing argument in favor of the halo that isn't "But what if a crash happens next year that the halo could have saved?" Which is an argument that can easily be countered by "What if a crash like Hinchcliffe's happens next year and a driver is unable to be saved because of Halo?" There's a trade off either way, and it's enough of a trade off that I can't see Halo as an improvement. At best it's a sideways move.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Conversely I am still to see anyone lay a case against it apart from "it look crap lol get rid of it I hate the FIA grr"

 

[TenEightyOne]

The Halo restricts access to the cockpit, and forces the driver to be extracted out of a smaller, higher up opening. This not only makes extraction more difficult and time consuming, but in the case of a back or neck injury has potential to exacerbate the injury.

The test show that in 15 of the 17 examined incidents halo would have been beneficial. The Halo is also removable, in the case of an inverted car the test runs show that it gives a driver more room to escape rather than less.

Personally I've only ever climbed out of an F1 car with no halo on but I can imagine that it would be far easier with a halo.

In the case of removing a driver with head or back injuries you're already cutting/dismantling the car to do that, halo is irrelevant in such cases.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Conversely I am still to see anyone lay a case against it apart from "it look crap lol get rid of it I hate the FIA grr"

I just did...

Other than that I agree looks are not a valid reason to not allow something.

 

[aarror]

The test show that in 15 of the 17 examined incidents halo would have been beneficial. The Halo is also removable, in the case of an inverted car the test runs show that it gives a driver more room to escape rather than less.

Lab tests can only do so much to simulate the real world, and I'm rather dubious of some of the methods they're using. For instance:

two collisions with external objects of which both chances to protect the driver’s head were successful.

In terms of debris protection it only really works against large objects like wheels, which must have been what they used on their 2 tests. It's unlikely it would have helped in Filipe Massa's case, for example. But the way they fire the objects at it doesn't accurately simulate a realistic situation anyways, with the object launched from a cannon it tracks a straight trajectory (something you'll never see from debris of any sort), and doesn't take into account that in a crash said object is likely to be spinning/rotating as it impacts the halo. As for wheels, a high speed impact with a bouncing wheel could catch the lip of the Halo from underneath, and if the halo really is removable it could tear it right off the car and hit the driver anyway.

On that subject, is it confirmed the halo is removable? I mean I know the one they're testing right now is, but I thought the idea was for it to be an integral part of the chassis, which is why the FIA had to make a decision so early in the year. If it isn't that poses some serious concerns about it, like how it would react to an impact coming from underneath the rim, or one directly on the mounting points.

Personally I've only ever climbed out of an F1 car with no halo on but I can imagine that it would be far easier with a halo.

Well very few people have climbed out of a car with Halo attached, so I'd be really impressed if you had! But considering the extraction time has increased, I think you're probably wrong on that one. If it was easier to get out of they wouldn't have had to change it at all.

Conversely I am still to see anyone lay a case against it apart from "it look crap lol get rid of it I hate the FIA grr"

I mean I've made 3 or 4 posts on the subject in this thread alone without mentioning looks, but if you want to ignore them that's fine too. I agree with you that looks are no basis to be against it, and even mentioned so in my post on the first page.

 

[Jimlaad43]

I don't like the halo, but it's another thing where haters are ignoring facts to make their wrong points. A driver can be trapped in a car at any time, and the halo is just similar to a closed cockpit LMP car. As a marshal, we DO NOT drag a driver out of a car unless a medical crew has told us to, and at that point they will do it anyway. Halo extraction is not a problem, the FIA are too jumpy over safety to produce something that will stop a driver being pulled out of a car. You have named 1 accident where the halo might have been a problem. The marshals and rescue teams are trained or given instructions on how to deal with stuff like that. Before the Grand Prix, us marshals are given a sheet of instructions on how to disable each KERS system and how to deal with them.

Taking the Hinchcliffe incident as an example, the marshals would be given instructions on how to remove a halo, and once the car is safe, could take it off while they wait for the ambulance and rescue truck to turn up.

What is a halo going to do? Reduce the chance of a driver getting head injuries. We don't yet know the numbers on how much time it takes to remove a halo, but we also don't know how easy it is to get a driver out with it still on. The FIA know what they're doing, no matter how much it looks like they aren't. As I said, I don't want to see halos on F1 cars, but we have them, they're there for a reason and I am already aware of the challenges they may cause to marshals in the event I need to deal with a driver struggling because of it. They look awful, but they are there for a reason, and we have to accept that and get on with it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The FIA know what they're doing, no matter how much it looks like they aren't.

It should be clarified, that while some here are arguing that the FIA are foolish, some of us are arguing that the direction they decided to go with seems to not be the most advantageous. I agree the FIA have a group of engineers and experts in other fields helping them progress, but on the other side of that there are independent engineers that have been used by the FIA that have said for various things what is the best solution and ultimately were not agreed with.

I agree with your view on extractions because you have experience working around this stuff, it's the engineering solution that I wish people would hold to task and discuss further even if somewhat difficult.

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

what do you mean stronger, reinforced carbon is far stronger than steel

Ok, I can ask this more simple I guess. Is the material for this cage the same material as the rest of the car?

Lab tests can only do so much to simulate the real world, and I'm rather dubious of some of the methods they're using.

Exactly what I'm thinking, this seems to be done more for political reasons than any real driver protection and seems horribly rushed with little to no (real life) testing. And it's concerning because it's directly in front of the driver's head.

One of the reasons it looks so stupid is it also looks really dangerous and useless for the purpose of driver's protection.


Kind of like the wheels aren't supposed to come off and this thing isn't supposed to break, yeah?


I'm not saying this couldn't be done, and I would be still against it, because it basically does away with "open cockpit" but regardless of that something like this halo needed a lot more testing and research to be considered safe.

 

[Jimlaad43]

The halo is by no means the best solution, but it is the most researched of the ones tested, and it is being brought in as a way for the FIA to show that they have the power to decide a rule change, not the teams. That said, they still wouldn't have brought it in if they weren't happy with it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

double post sorry, delete please.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Ok, I can ask this more simple I guess. Is the material for this cage the same material as the rest of the car?

The cage? If you mean the HALO, then yes it's the same as the carbon used in the crash structure of the car. The more thinner carbon that is the body itself isn't nearly as strong. So it's more closer in comparison to the monocoque.

The halo is by no means the best solution, but it is the most researched of the ones tested, and it is being brought in as a way for the FIA to show that they have the power to decide a rule change, not the teams. That said, they still wouldn't have brought it in if they weren't happy with it.

There is a vast difference between what makes them happy, what makes teams and other engineering groups and potential manufactures happy. And also what they claimed they were going to try and fix outright, which is head protection to drivers in the wake of various events. Now some of those events have been made preventable if they were to happen today. However, all that can be said in a situation like that of what Massa faced is there is a 17% increase in protection. It doesn't say it would prevent it like the Aeroscreen and Shield, also once again while the Halo is claimed to be the most tested, the FIA has shown that they have various designs from the get go that were born supposedly around the same time as the Halo. Incidents that have now been made virtually preventable have nothing to do with the Halo. So it brings the question up to such that, if the Halo is only doing a slightly better job than nothing, then why not spend the rest of the year testing the shield, and implement it for next year? If the goal is in fact overall protection to the driver's head.

It's a bit strange that they seemed to have perfected on design over the others unless they were able to deduce from an early concept that the others weren't going to tackle the requirements the FIA felt were needed. The Aeroscreen is easily the second most tested, while the shield has had far less testing, but seemingly by choice.

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

The cage? If you mean the HALO, then yes it's the same as the carbon used in the crash structure of the car. The more thinner carbon that is the body itself isn't nearly as strong. So it's more closer in comparison to the monocoque.

Yeah, ok that's what I meant. I know the monocoque is very strong, but it's also huge compared to this well, "cage" (that's basically what it is right, "halo" is just a marketing term they think sounds cute?) so I'm thinking during a crash this might break easily - depending on the impact I'm actually expecting this to happen. And then you have all sorts of complications and possibly injuries too.


I'm thinking for example this crazy crash at indy this year where the driver's head (don't know the name) was basically only a few centimeters away from the barrier. If his car would have been equipped with such a "safety" device like the halo, this halo would have most likely hit that barrier with completely unknown and unforeseeable outcome.

Just an example, but accidents like this are very usual, unlike drivers getting hit by huge objects - so this whole thing just seems ill thought out and obviously needs a lot more testing and the audience needs a lot more information.

"We tested it and it's fine." Doesn't really cut it imo.

I'm also not convinced this doesn't obstruct the driver's view tremendously, especially in conditions with bad sight (rain) this might make racing even more difficult, if not impossible.


Weren't the teams against it and the FIA just went ahead with it anyways?

I mean that alone seems ridiculous, even without the other concerns.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm thinking for example this crazy crash at indy this year where the driver's head (don't know the name) was basically only a few centimeters away from the barrier. If his car would have been equipped with such a "safety" device like the halo, this halo would have most likely hit that barrier with completely unknown and unforeseeable outcome.

Interestingly Whiting quotes two fatal accidents (Fontana and Campo, iirc) where he believes the halo would have mitigated against what he calls "environmental intrusion", that is to say the space around the driver's head meeting an object that's part of the track build. The halo as it is (and supposedly it will be stronger when we see the new version) can take the weight of 14 F1 cars... so that's a 14g impact if the car's flying and directly impacts "environmentally".

As it is I still hate the look and the idea but I can't see any engineering or safety arguments against it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yeah, ok that's what I meant. I know the monocoque is very strong, but it's also huge compared to this well, "cage" (that's basically what it is right, "halo" is just a marketing term they think sounds cute?) so I'm thinking during a crash this might break easily - depending on the impact I'm actually expecting this to happen. And then you have all sorts of complications and possibly injuries too.

No...I doubt it's to be cute, not sure why you're so irritated by this but it doesn't promote intellectual discussion. So how about we just try and stick to that. The halo isn't massive, because unlike a monocoque it has a singular purpose of protecting a small portion of the driver, their head. A monocoque protect the entire body of the driver from all sides. So even if it's noticeably smaller it doesn't mean it can't be built to a spec, that takes on various properties with similar results to something bigger. Also I must clarify while the Halo does have reinforced carbon the internal structure has been Titanium, previously it was steel. This is probably to ensure that it doesn't dangerously harm a driver as you've suggested.

I'm thinking for example this crazy crash at indy this year where the driver's head (don't know the name) was basically only a few centimeters away from the barrier. If his car would have been equipped with such a "safety" device like the halo, this halo would have most likely hit that barrier with completely unknown and unforeseeable outcome.

No it's not unforeseeable, if you know how fast the car was going, or measure of impact to the fence as well as angle of impact, you could figure out if in fact a head protection device will hold up or not. Considering the yield stress and maximum bending moment of Titanium is quite high, it would take quite a lot for it to break a crash structure and (I'm guessing from your irritation) impale a helmet. If that was the case, then weaker steel tube chassis and space frames shouldn't be used out of such fears for race drivers.

Just an example, but accidents like this are very usual, unlike drivers getting hit by huge objects - so this whole thing just seems ill thought out and obviously needs a lot more testing and the audience needs a lot more information.

"We tested it and it's fine." Doesn't really cut it imo.

I'm also not convinced this doesn't obstruct the driver's view tremendously, especially in conditions with bad sight (rain) this might make racing even more difficult, if not impossible.


Weren't the teams against it and the FIA just went ahead with it anyways?

I mean that alone seems ridiculous, even without the other concerns.

How is it ill thought out...when was the last time you saw an F1 car in a catch fence. I think comparing Indy cars to F1 is a bad call, just cause they're open cockpit, open wheel doesn't mean they see equal incidents. Considering these catch fence incidents mainly happen at Ovals.

Also as someone that does engineering, and has tested, and also has a degree in welding-metallurgy and has done destructive and non-destructive testing on structured steel, aluminum, stainless steel and some sparse exotic metals... If a group of engineers has tested something and come to a conclusion of it works, it's because it does work and there is various papers involved, publications and data to back it up. I can prove to you why a certain airfoil has properties shown in a lab and translated to real world from data collected and testing done, understanding that is quite hard unless you know what you're looking at. So FIA and other bodies try to make this easier to understand for fans.

Teams were against this (well all but Ferrari) because of various reasons, none of which I've seen other than RBR. But RBR had their own solution to this and so it can't be said that they don't see a purpose for head protection, but rather don't see a purpose for the Halo over their Aeroscreen. So simply saying "teams didn't want it" is vastly black and white for a situation that isn't such.

FIA told teams for some time that mandatory head protection was incoming, so it's not as if this was a shock to anyone in the paddock, to casual fans perhaps.

 

[Greycap]

So it brings the question up to such that, if the Halo is only doing a slightly better job than nothing, then why not spend the rest of the year testing the shield, and implement it for next year?

One big reason is that the Halo is ready to go right now, the shield isn't, and the teams are already designing the 2018 cars which will have to incorporate whatever is decided to be used. It may only be a slight improvement over having nothing at all but it's still the biggest improvement that is available at the moment.

Some of the arguments against it are just... well, not properly thought out. If something gets through the Halo and hits the driver, it was going to hit him anyway if the Halo wasn't there. If something hits the Halo, breaks it and then hits the driver, see the previous case. And about it obstructing the view - it really doesn't. The driver is sitting so low in the car that his eyeline is barely centimeters above the nose of the car and the upper part of the helmet visor is already blanked out by a sponsorship sticker, the upwards viewing angle is so restricted that the Halo doesn't make much if any difference. Not to mention that there really isn't a lot worth seeing on the track above around 1 metre from the track surface. The vertical support isn't a problem, it can be demonstrated by holding a pen, a TV remote, anything suitably sized in front of your face and looking past it into the distance. It magically becomes transparent.

 

[Jimlaad43]

The only thing I am worried about with the halo is raised flag points. Silverstone has a lot of flag posts up a 2m high wall, and I'd be interested to see if the halo blocks the view of the entry to Copse for example, or the tower on the exit of Becketts.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Interestingly Whiting quotes two fatal accidents (Fontana and Campo, iirc) where he believes the halo would have mitigated against what he calls "environmental intrusion", that is to say the space around the driver's head meeting an object that's part of the track build. The halo as it is (and supposedly it will be stronger when we see the new version) can take the weight of 14 F1 cars... so that's a 14g impact if the car's flying and directly impacts "environmentally".

As it is I still hate the look and the idea but I can't see any engineering or safety arguments against it.

Where was this said? I'd like to see the data on it, because it would be much more beneficial to all if the FIA showed video or tables of a large object being tossed at the Halo, rather than a tire assembly of 20kg. This would probably put many things to rest.

One big reason is that the Halo is ready to go right now, the shield isn't, and the teams are already designing the 2018 cars which will have to incorporate whatever is decided to be used. It may only be a slight improvement over having nothing at all but it's still the biggest improvement that is available at the moment.

Obviously, hence why not spend the time from when Vettel said "yeah no good" in July until December to sort it out. As I pointed out many teams were already designing their car if not half way done when the Halo announcement came, and are currently assessing parts for this season and next, with a time table for 2018 parts to be tested later this year at the final grand prix. One team as I showed has already claimed that the Halo is going to push them behind schedule potentially. Teams were also designing cars supposedly that would favor the Shield more because it seemed the Halo wasn't going to be used. Though the FIA said they would mandate it if necessary (and did) http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/39713765.

However, the FIA also claimed it would test the Shield in Monza, so clearly there wasn't much worry about teams not being able to implement it, if September's test had gone through. http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/129311

Some of the arguments against it are just... well, not properly thought out. If something gets through the Halo and hits the driver, it was going to hit him anyway if the Halo wasn't there. If something hits the Halo, breaks it and then hits the driver, see the previous case. And about it obstructing the view - it really doesn't. The driver is sitting so low in the car that his eyeline is barely centimeters above the nose of the car and the upper part of the helmet visor is already blanked out by a sponsorship sticker, the upwards viewing angle is so restricted that the Halo doesn't make much if any difference. Not to mention that there really isn't a lot worth seeing on the track above around 1 metre from the track surface. The vertical supports isn't a problem, it can be demonstrated by holding a pen, a TV remote, anything suitably sized in front of your face and looking past it into the distance. It magically becomes transparent.

That's not what I am saying, I'd argue those people anyways and currently am. My point from an engineering perspective is this. The FIA came out and said that they wanted to bring head protection to drivers in the wake of certain incidents around 2009. That said the first solution the brought about was wheel tethers which I posted about earlier. These tethers were done in a way that tires would not be able to separate from the car and into the path of drivers. This was done to prevent accidents that killed John Surtees' son. The next prevention supposedly was that of what badly injured Felipe Massa the Halo doesn't do that. So while it may hit the driver anyways with or without the Halo, that doesn't mean by default you put the halo on. That's a horrible fallacy of logic, because you've not changed anything.

As for view obstruction, the argument you make isn't one I've seen in that regard, the roofline isn't the issue, it's the vertical brace that comes directly into the line of sight. The concern is that over time the driver may accidentally get fixated on that or have it obstruct their view. I would caution people though, that the FIA has with each version of the Halo gone about fixing this, and with a fourth version in the works may fix it even more. Though I disagree it magically becomes transparent, one you'd have to know the distance from the driver's face to the actual location to conduct this and see if so.

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

Ah, now it's titanium ok... I knew carbon fiber would be a bad idea for this (which didn't mean I couldn't see them using it)

As for the name, I think the fact you think I'm irritated pretty much confirms it's a marketing term that's supposed to sound cute / cool or whatever, but I agree that's not the point, they had to find a name for it afterall...

And I can't really disagree with most of the other things you said, but I still think it's an unnecessary addition and yes, the teams knew it was coming - since many years, good old Bernie obviously prevented it from happening. And I've always said I won't watch F1 anymore if they make anything even remotely like this halo device, so yeah definitely end of an era. Sad because F1 was the only kind of sport I've been regularly watching and that since I was a kid, my first memory of it is "red car, Nicki Lauda", man those were the times huh. (I think this was after his accident).


And yeah I didn't really watch it for a while when they introduced the V6 engines, so this is similar, not a boycott just no interest. It's like whatever.

I'll still watch this season as it's probably the last chance to see these cars driving (can't hear them anymore anyways) and it's strangely a pretty good season too, after quite some time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Where was this said?

A few interesting reads that I thought I'd posted... now I'm not so sure. Ach so

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12...rength-and-more-ahead-of-f1-2018-introduction
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/07/...alo-track-limits-safety-car-starts-radio-ban/
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/07/21/how-much-safer-will-halo-make-f1-drivers/

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Ah, now it's titanium ok... I knew carbon fiber would be a bad idea for this (which didn't mean I couldn't see them using it)

As for the name, I think the fact you think I'm irritated pretty much confirms it's a marketing term that's supposed to sound cute / cool or whatever, but I agree that's not the point, they had to find a name for it afterall...

And I can't really disagree with most of the other things you said, but I still think it's an unnecessary addition and yes, the teams knew it was coming - since many years, good old Bernie obviously prevented it from happening. And I've always said I won't watch F1 anymore if they make anything even remotely like this halo device, so yeah definitely end of an era. Sad because F1 was the only kind of sport I've been regularly watching and that since I was a kid, my first memory of it is "red car, Nicki Lauda", man those were the times huh. (I think this was after his accident).


And yeah I didn't really watch it for a while when they introduced the V6 engines, so this is similar, not a boycott just no interest. It's like whatever.

I'll still watch this season as it's probably the last chance to see these cars driving (can't hear them anymore anyways) and it's strangely a pretty good season too, after quite some time.

No like I said, it's a Titanium core structure with carbon wrapped around. Carbon is stronger, you've yet to explain why you think Carbon being used is bad... Bernie didn't prevent anything, why people think the FOM has this technical power is beyond me, they don't, never have and probably never will. Not sure why the Halo device means you will stop watching F1 but that's your choice and issue so yeah can't say I really care to argue that.

No I think you're irritated because something got pushed forward that you don't like, and rather than understand why you've defaulted to just visceral disgust and guesstimates as to why it wont work, which is irrational. They could have called it Pegasuses Hugs or leperchan farts

A few interesting reads that I thought I'd posted... now I'm not so sure. Ach so

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12...rength-and-more-ahead-of-f1-2018-introduction
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/07/...alo-track-limits-safety-car-starts-radio-ban/
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/07/21/how-much-safer-will-halo-make-f1-drivers/

15 time the weight of an F1 car...okay so 15 times 722 kg. That still doesn't tell us what the yield strength is, unless they're being that simple and saying it is that number times 9.81 and thus you have your max force applied. Which would be 106kN, however the force of the car times 15 static and force of a 722 kg car dynamically coming at the structure at say 225kph are two different things.