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

[Kurei]

Voted no in the poll, we may get the Halo, but we're getting rid of the shark-fins - which IMO will do more for aesthetics.

(So long as the design teams are elegant with their implementation of the device.)

 

[IforceV8]

Power was lucky here, but this can happen at turn 1 at Spa tomorrow too.

 

[Simmpa]

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.

Surely alot of people quit watching if you compare viewers from the past

 

[TenEightyOne]

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.

Absolutely, but you have a few millimetres in which to decelerate that car with the halo so it's in nearly-absolute territory. Such an accident remains likely to be extremely injurious if not fatal, fifteen times the standard mass (I erroneously said fourteen before) isn't a great deal of protection in such an impact.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Voted no in the poll, we may get the Halo, but we're getting rid of the shark-fins - which IMO will do more for aesthetics.

(So long as the design teams are elegant with their implementation of the device.)

Banning the shark fins is the stupidest rule for next year. They look awesome, and they're the perfect place for the teams to put the driver names and numbers as the new rules state. Banning the T-Wing is fine, but the fins? No.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Absolutely, but you have a few millimetres in which to decelerate that car with the halo so it's in nearly-absolute territory. Such an accident remains likely to be extremely injurious if not fatal, fifteen times the standard mass (I erroneously said fourteen before) isn't a great deal of protection in such an impact.

Well yes, obviously but when you take the initial equation and then add that factor in. I mean I made it a simple dynamics problem, I would also have to factor in angle as well. But the point remains as you've said and I've said that if 15 time the car is the max an halo can be stressed for, then it will have a difficult time against something going 225kph that isn't a tire.

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

Banning the shark fins is the stupidest rule for next year. They look awesome, and they're the perfect place for the teams to put the driver names and numbers as the new rules state. Banning the T-Wing is fine, but the fins? No.

True, I didn't like the shark fins at first but now I think they fit the cars, not sure if they changed them a bit during the season? The T-wing still looks incredibly stupid though.

 

[Kurei]

I think they have changed slightly in-shape since the beginning, mostly around the 'underside' at the rear, and the T-wings just went a bit too far, but I've done fins-on and fins-off in various sims that allow the change, and I personally still prefer no-fin, adds to the 'low' image they were going for along with wider cars in-general.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Force India say that the testing information has not yet come through from the FIA and that the delay risks some teams being absent from the winter (or pre-season) test. Sky.

 

[PeterJB]

It wouldn't surprise if this thing gets revoked after three races cause either a driver gets trapped in a burning car, hits a wall and bangs their head on it, or a wing gets embedded in it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It wouldn't surprise if this thing gets revoked after three races cause either a driver gets trapped in a burning car, hits a wall and bangs their head on it, or a wing gets embedded in it.

When was the last time a driver's car burnt out, the last time HANS failed or the last time a driver was hit in the head by a flying wing?

 

[Dennisch]

When was the last time a driver's car burnt out, the last time HANS failed or the last time a driver was hit in the head by a flying wing?

Exactly! We don't need the Halo!

Wait. What?

 

[BuckFly]

It's kind of funny, and maybe I'm not the only one: I like looking at the cars when they are by themselves, essentially when they are posed, but while they are racing I just plain don't even think about the aesthetics, whatsoever.

Yeah...yeah, I'm honestly just realizing that now. I don't really see the cars anymore, I see the race, I see the moves, I see the positioning and I get anxious and excited with the speed of everything.

...weird that it took this thread for me to realize it.

 

[PeterJB]

When was the last time a driver's car burnt out, the last time HANS failed or the last time a driver was hit in the head by a flying wing?

Cars catch fire all the time, HANS isn't full-proof and in Belgium Ocon's wing narrowly avoided ending up in the grandstands. It wouldn't be hard for one to end up in someone's face.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Exactly! We don't need the Halo!

Wait. What?

I was specifically answering his anti-halo concerns. I should have been more thorough

Cars catch fire all the time

Well... they don't. Why would halo trap a driver in a car? They can climb out with no difficulty. Even with a tub placed in the same position as Alonso's car came to rest after his huge Australia wreck the FIA operative was able to exit the car with no added difficulty.

HANS isn't full-proof

Again, I disagree. If HANS failed then the kind of force that would push a driver's head so far forward would already be causing them serious injury. The head that hit the halo would still be helmeted. That might sound like an elocution excercise but it's fact... if the head could travel like that the neck would be severely damaged, not the cranium.

in Belgium Ocon's wing narrowly avoided ending up in the grandstands.

The halo isn't for grandstands.

 

[Dennisch]

I was specifically answering his anti-halo concerns. I should have been more thorough

I'm just here to cause more confusion.

 

[Kurei]

So Magnussen's Renault catching fire last year, and Kimi's Ferrari same year didn't catch fire & require extinguishing?

That was all smoke & mirrors?

Man, who knew...

The fact they've had to raise the extraction time-limit to accommodate the device should cause red flags that this isn't so much about safety, than it is about PR in a post-Bianchi lawsuit F1.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So Magnussen's Renault catching fire last year, and Kimi's Ferrari same year didn't catch fire & require extinguishing?

That was all smoke & mirrors?

Smoke in the mirrors. Neither of those fires engulfed the car in 8 seconds or hindered the driver's egress. The driver's egress time is now 8s, so the same applies. Halo doesn't affect the drivers' ability to leave the car.

isn't so much about safety, than it is about PR in a post-Bianchi lawsuit F1.

It is about safety and a post-Bianchi lawsuit. That shouldn't be so hard to grasp. If a driver dies in a race insured under FIA ratification and if that death is shown to be avoidable using existing safety technology (eg halo) then that's a serious situation that could finish the sport. Obvious, really.

 

[IforceV8]

It is about safety and a post-Bianchi lawsuit. That shouldn't be so hard to grasp. If a driver dies in a race insured under FIA ratification and if that death is shown to be avoidable using existing safety technology (eg halo) then that's a serious situation that could finish the sport. Obvious, really.

To be fair the HALO would have hit Bianchi in the head when he hit a tractor. The failure was on the FIA for sending construction equipment onto a hot race track in the first place.

 

[BuckFly]

So Magnussen's Renault catching fire last year, and Kimi's Ferrari same year didn't catch fire & require extinguishing?

That was all smoke & mirrors?

Man, who knew...

The fact they've had to raise the extraction time-limit to accommodate the device should cause red flags that this isn't so much about safety, than it is about PR in a post-Bianchi lawsuit F1.

I hear ya, Kurei. My post was more about a self realization than an actual comment on the topic.

 

[TenEightyOne]

To be fair the HALO would have hit Bianchi in the head when he hit a tractor. The failure was on the FIA for sending construction equipment onto a hot race track in the first place.

There's no suggestion that halo could have mitigated against Bianchi's injuries and, as far as I'm aware, there never has been.

 

[Kurei]

I hear ya, Kurei. My post was more about a self realization than an actual comment on the topic.

My post wasn't aimed at yours, I posted that on mobile and it should have quoted TenEighty, but I guess GTP decided not to insert the message like I thought it did, no worries. 👍

Smoke in the mirrors. Neither of those fires engulfed the car in 8 seconds or hindered the driver's egress. The driver's egress time is now 8s, so the same applies. Halo doesn't affect the drivers' ability to leave the car.

Please go re-watch the cockpit footage of Magnussen's car. It shouldn't matter if the whole car is engulfed nose to tail, or if just the area around the cockpit has lit-up, that fire doesn't care if he can get out in 5 seconds or 8, counting from the first ploom of smoke it got to within reach of his helmet in about 4 seconds and he still had to crawl back, up and out through it to egress the hole before jumping clear.

I also cannot believe you think the device doesn't present it's own hurdle for the driver to overcome (literally) in a stressed situation. Let's go back to Mag's car, and now imagine the halo device is fitted, watch where he places his feet to jump clear. Is that space for his foot still free?, or is the center-section 'post' now blocking his footing? What about the 'hoop' of the device?, does he have time to step over it 1 foot at time? - no, that fire is still growing and won't wait for him to clear the hoop before spreading.
So what are his options then? He literally has to add another 'phase' to his egress to clear the device one way or another... oh by the way, the fire still isn't stopping, it's been about 8 seconds from the first ploom of smoke to when he finally clears the car, and that's without the device impeding his own extraction. Add the additional phase of clearing the device while the fire is still going, and we are past a 'safe' 8-second escape from the fire. Go time it, I did.

The device may not fully impede an extraction like say, a closed canopy under normal situations with no concern of safety or self-preservation present, but to say it doesn't affect the total length of time or that it doesn't present it's own challenges and potential danger is absolute bull.

It is about safety and a post-Bianchi lawsuit. That shouldn't be so hard to grasp. If a driver dies in a race insured under FIA ratification and if that death is shown to be avoidable using existing safety technology (eg halo) then that's a serious situation that could finish the sport. Obvious, really.

I disagree, if it was all about safety-first then why are the FIA yet to release needed data to the teams? I mean your own link states that teams are facing a delay due to a lack of necessary technical data involving the device, yet the FIA has touted they've tested it thoroughly, not to mention how it would've prevented certain deaths here and there, and are going with it no matter what. If safety was the priority then they should be doing everything to avoid a delay and be publicly open about it with all teams if that becomes the case - yet here we are.

@IforceV8 hit the actual issue, the FIA in-fact made a mistake back in 2014 at Japan. You can go back and watch how the FOM camera-coverage changes once they've realized there had been a 2nd crash, not to avoid things like gore and such - though that's understandably a concern, but rather they didn't want the mistake of not red-flagging like they should have, given the circumstances, and what it had in-part caused to be publicized more than it inevitably would be.

I see it as more political-PR than genuine safety-effort, and will until we start actually seeing built chassis with full device integration from the ground-up, not cobbled-together on a existing chassis just to look like an effort is being made. Until then I'm gonna go get some food, ya'll got me riled up now.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Please go re-watch the cockpit footage of Magnussen's car. It shouldn't matter if the whole car is engulfed nose to tail, or if just the area around the cockpit has lit-up, that fire doesn't care if he can get out in 5 seconds or 8, counting from the first ploom of smoke it got to within reach of his helmet in about 4 seconds and he still had to crawl back, up and out through it to egress the hole before jumping clear.

I also cannot believe you think the device doesn't present it's own hurdle for the driver to overcome (literally) in a stressed situation. Let's go back to Mag's car, and now imagine the halo device is fitted, watch where he places his feet to jump clear. Is that space for his foot still free?, or is the center-section 'post' now blocking his footing? What about the 'hoop' of the device?, does he have time to step over it 1 foot at time? - no, that fire is still growing and won't wait for him to clear the hoop before spreading.
So what are his options then? He literally has to add another 'phase' to his egress to clear the device one way or another... oh by the way, the fire still isn't stopping, it's been about 8 seconds from the first ploom of smoke to when he finally clears the car, and that's without the device impeding his own extraction. Add the additional phase of clearing the device while the fire is still going, and we are past a 'safe' 8-second escape from the fire. Go time it, I did.

The device may not fully impede an extraction like say, a closed canopy under normal situations with no concern of safety or self-preservation present, but to say it doesn't affect the total length of time or that it doesn't present it's own challenges and potential danger is absolute bull.

The drivers who've tested the rigid halo (rather than the fake used in early running) are reporting that it's as easy (or easier) to get out as they can pull themselves upright rather than press-up out of the car. Getting out of the car is an awkward business. I struggled to do under 12 seconds although I am a little portlier than Paul di Resta whose car I was sitting in. Being able to pull with your hands higher would obviously be far easier. Nor were fixed-seat extraction tests with halo attached any more difficult.

I understand why you're concerned it might trap a driver but I prefer to go with the opinion of the drivers and marshalls who've tested it.

I disagree, if it was all about safety-first then why are the FIA yet to release needed data to the teams? I mean your own link states that teams are facing a delay due to a lack of necessary technical data involving the device, yet the FIA has touted they've tested it thoroughly, not to mention how it would've prevented certain deaths here and there, and are going with it no matter what. If safety was the priority then they should be doing everything to avoid a delay and be publicly open about it with all teams if that becomes the case - yet here we are.

They're doing everything as publicly as it needs to be - clearly the manufacturing data needs to be pushed to the teams much more quickly but I can't see how you might reasonably think that any delay in doing so undermines the safety reasons for mandating the equipment. If you're not on their mailing list then I have no idea why, I really don't.

@IforceV8 hit the actual issue, the FIA in-fact made a mistake back in 2014 at Japan. You can go back and watch how the FOM camera-coverage changes once they've realized there had been a 2nd crash, not to avoid things like gore and such - though that's understandably a concern, but rather they didn't want the mistake of not red-flagging like they should have, given the circumstances, and what it had in-part caused to be publicized more than it inevitably would be.

How is FOM anything to do with the FIA? It's normal to cut a camera feed away from a potentially serious accident, we've seen that several times in recent years and not just at Suzuka. You can't claim to know what FOM were thinking or that their coverage somehow demonstrates mistakes by the FIA, although you're not clear what they were.

I see it as more political-PR than genuine safety-effort, and will until we start actually seeing built chassis with full device integration from the ground-up, not cobbled-together on a existing chassis just to look like an effort is being made. Until then I'm gonna go get some food, ya'll got me riled up now.

If it's PR then it's crap, everybody hates the idea, me included. Put yourself in the position of the company underwriting the race insurance. Are you happy to continue with the risk of a driver death when a mitigation device was available? That's the position that the FIA find themselves in.

 

[Kurei]

Alright, now that I've got some food in me and I've cooled-down, let's get back to the discussion that's quickly going off-topic.

The drivers who've tested the rigid halo (rather than the fake used in early running) are reporting that it's as easy (or easier) to get out as they can pull themselves upright rather than press-up out of the car. Getting out of the car is an awkward business. I struggled to do under 12 seconds although I am a little portlier than Paul di Resta whose car I was sitting in. Being able to pull with your hands higher would obviously be far easier. Nor were fixed-seat extraction tests with halo attached any more difficult.

I understand why you're concerned it might trap a driver but I prefer to go with the opinion of the drivers and marshalls who've tested it.

Oh I know it's awkward, I got a taste through a 2006-Indycar in 2009. I've just got a feeling that there's going to be egress issues with it for a while. I will admit I keep forgetting that drivers are wearing firesuits and nomex and such and that's another layer of protection, but any instance where you get away from a present danger faster, or avoid it entirely, the better.

They're doing everything as publicly as it needs to be - clearly the manufacturing data needs to be pushed to the teams much more quickly but I can't see how you might reasonably think that any delay in doing so undermines the safety reasons for mandating the equipment. If you're not on their mailing list then I have no idea why, I really don't.

It goes back to what PeterJB mentioned above, about how it could very well get revoked a few races into 2018 - not for his listed reasons, but for when people come to a general consensus that adding it did little to nothing for the safety overall but create a bunch of buzz and hype over 'what-if' scenarios involving tires coming loose from the cars - which shouldn't happen anyways if the tethers are properly used.
If the FIA has multiple-tests worth of data, but aren't able to get that data to the teams with hast - yet all it took was a knee-jerk reaction to Vettel's "I don't like it" comment to mandate the device, how can we know that they have in-fact tested it so thoroughly and have the data to back it up?

I've also attached a hastly-made 'device-comparsion' thing I've seen making the rounds of the internet, that reminds me of past aero-devices that quickly got banned on safety-grounds, yet when the HALO's center-post comes up in discussion, it's all of sudden ok because 'safety'?

To say the FIA can be fickle is one way to put it, did we all forget about shoot-out quali already?

How is FOM anything to do with the FIA? It's normal to cut a camera feed away from a potentially serious accident, we've seen that several times in recent years and not just at Suzuka. You can't claim to know what FOM were thinking or that their coverage somehow demonstrates mistakes by the FIA, although you're not clear what they were.

Except I was, a race that was worthy of being red-flagged and should of been red-flagged, considering the race conditions (heavy rain) as well as a tractor being sent on-track for vehicle extraction with cars still on-track, wasn't red-flagged until stewards and commentators picked-up on something being wrong when the transponder acted-up, I still faintly remember the confusion they had 'up in the booth' while everything was happening.
I may not be on their mailing list, but we can all see the legacy it left in the form of how FOM & the FIA have approached wet-race conditions since then, with just about every wet race starting under safety-car, run under safety-car until dry-enough, and then switched to utilizing the drying line. There's a reason quali took so long at Monza last-week, not because of the weather itself - F1 used to not fear the wet back in the day, but because Charlie was probably understandably nervous about the treacherous conditions.

Tin-foil hat?, probably. But I'm just calling it like I see it. It could change if we start seeing real standing-starts in the wet again.

If it's PR then it's crap, everybody hates the idea, me included. Put yourself in the position of the company underwriting the race insurance. Are you happy to continue with the risk of a driver death when a mitigation device was available? That's the position that the FIA find themselves in.

Don't most drivers sign some form of liability-waivers in their contracts though? I even want to say there might be some stipulations for acquiring a Super License besides mileage/experience, but maybe that's the old-F1 in me lingering. The risk is never fully gone, we can reduce it as much as possible, but when we see a device introduced, that by standing precedents (that image) should be banned on safety-grounds as it's 'predecessors' were , but because it's based in potential safety gets the green-light? I don't know man, I don't see a green-light, I see a double-standard.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It goes back to what PeterJB mentioned above, about how it could very well get revoked a few races into 2018 - not for his listed reasons, but for when people come to a general consensus that adding it did little to nothing for the safety overall but create a bunch of buzz and hype over 'what-if' scenarios involving tires coming loose from the cars - which shouldn't happen anyways if the tethers are properly used.

That was just one of the scenarios in the testing. Have you read any of the links in this thread or are we arguing about halo in the state that you've decided for yourself?

The test data has been presented in spades to the media, the teams and the drivers (read the links). What they're missing now is the mounting point regulations and the crash-test-force information.

...yet all it took was a knee-jerk reaction to Vettel's "I don't like it" comment to mandate the device, how can we know that they have in-fact tested it so thoroughly and have the data to back it up?

The video of Vettel's test was plain for all to see and the distortion was definitely there. I saw it, did you?

I've also attached a hastly-made 'device-comparsion' thing I've seen making the rounds of the internet, that reminds me of past aero-devices that quickly got banned on safety-grounds, yet when the HALO's center-post comes up in discussion, it's all of sudden ok because 'safety'?

It's ugly, definitely. Now it's available it has to be used.

Except I was, a race that was worthy of being red-flagged and should of been red-flagged, considering the race conditions (heavy rain) as well as a tractor being sent on-track for vehicle extraction with cars still on-track, wasn't red-flagged until stewards and commentators picked-up on something being wrong when the transponder acted-up,

I agree it should have been red-flagged, partly with the benefit of hindsight given that there was nothing unusual about the DWY procedure, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the commentators or stewards somehow contributed to Race Control's decision making.

There's a reason quali took so long at Monza last-week, not because of the weather itself - F1 used to not fear the wet back in the day, but because Charlie was probably understandably nervous about the treacherous conditions.

The reason is aquaplaning. You surely know that?

How about Montreal 2011 which was a very long, rain-delayed race? How does that fit your logic, and do you accept that aquaplaning exists or that modern trauma facilities should be available by helicopter?

Don't most drivers sign some form of liability-waivers in their contracts though?

Against death that could be made preventable by available provisions? No. And that's the real crux of the matter. That brings us to the question you didn't answer:

Put yourself in the position of the company underwriting the race insurance. Are you happy to continue with the risk of a driver death when a mitigation device was available?

 

[XJ40]

Whist the halo won't stop me watching the real F1, I wonder if Codemasters will have to model it for the game... Even the aerials in front of the driver in cockpit view annoy the hell out of me so I'm not sure how the halo will fit into the screen. At least I won't see the aerials anymore.

 

[Kurei]

Whist the halo won't stop me watching the real F1, I wonder if Codemasters will have to model it for the game... Even the aerials in front of the driver in cockpit view annoy the hell out of me so I'm not sure how the halo will fit into the screen. At least I won't see the aerials anymore.

You can get a pretty good idea right now, search "Automobilista HALO" on YouTube, basically it'll be a large static obstruction when trying to look ahead and up the track, especially with elevation.

@TenEightyOne, I'm back on mobile and want to keep this short, rapid-fire incoming.
-My first post in the thread is on this page, I stated my answer, explained why when someone countered it, and moved on initially. It was seeing you tell someone cars don't catch fire, when 2016 has a few examples, that brought me back in.
I tend to try and not spend excessive time on GTP when there's plenty else I want to do, my (admittedly limited) info on HALO is just what I've seen in news around the web, "we're doing it soon" - "we've postponed it" - "we're pushing it through" - "they're delaying our progress" all paints a picture for me that shoes there may just be issues behind the scenes.
- I did, that shouldn't exclude it from further refinement/engineering and leave HALO as the only option, they've postponed the implementation before for testing, is that no longer a option for the shield?
- I don't see how 'availability' is a excuse to ignore precedent of safety concerns.
- Did I say they contributed directly?, or that their confusion over the occurrence hinted at something gone wrong because of a lack of decisive, preventable action elsewhere?
- I know aquaplaning exists, I know by physics alone that it'll be more an issue with the wider tires than the old skinny ones. But I have to go with Helmut Marko, going back & forth ("because of Grosjean") as frequently as they did was overkill, Montreal was race - redflag - dry - resume, not green/yellow/green/red/green/yellow/green or whatever the pattern was.
- I'll answer with another question, what happens when the mitigation device fails in another Massa/Spring incident? What if Ocon's chunk of wing from Spa had, instead of going airborne, got thrown back at a driver behind, missing the device and hitting from either side?

Believing the device is impervious and the best catch-all solution, and pushing it through without testing others as thoroughly comes across as shortsighted in my opinion, and more for a PR stance. At this stage they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Anyways, we've long since been off-topic, it's the "Will you boycott F1" thread, not the "Halo discussion and debate thread", I originally just wanted to point out cars can and do catch-fire, I've clearly escalated beyond that, and I need to stop.

 

[Whodoyouthink]

Pointing out that Senna and Bianchi would have both died regardless of if the halo or shield were in place then. Senna due to the tire striking the top of his helmet, and Bianchi due to the 74 mph-0 sudden stop causing more of his injuries than the crane he hit.

I actually thought Senna's death was ultimately due to a piece of suspension puncturing his helmet, not necessarily just the tire/wheel hitting his head. Which all the more means the halo probably wouldn't have done enough to prevent anything. The suspension part is small enough it would have easily gone through the openings.

Same with Massa's spring-to-head incident. Part was small enough to easily bypass the halo. But the helmet did a great job of preventing even more harm, although ideally there would have been none to begin with. But comparing how his head would have taken it with no helmet definitely shows a major difference.

My main concern has been the same from the start; driver visibility. The shield fixes this problem a lot more, but somehow it still has been settled that a centerline obstruction is much better... I've heard time and time again that the focus is always far ahead, so the halo kind of blurs in to the foreground, much like our own noses. But it does still obstruct the vision, especially during a start or following close behind another car.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I actually thought Senna's death was ultimately due to a piece of suspension puncturing his helmet, not necessarily just the tire/wheel hitting his head.

Indeed it was, at least according to Dr. Watkins who attended to Senna in his final moments. The argument is, I think, that halo might have prevented the wheel and associated suspension assembly from approaching close enough to cause injury. I'm not sure if it would have but then we have very little actual data on the moments of the accident.

driver visibility. The shield fixes this problem a lot more

It doesn't though, as you can see from Vettel's onboard during his shield test the distortion is pretty extreme. No cleaning fix exists for it either at this time.