Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by Hun200kmh, Jul 14, 2011.
If it's enough force to break, then it's not negating enough force to be safe.
I imagine it depends on the material the halo is made of. I can't see how it would be anymore dangerous than the object that's causing it to break, in the first place.
The frame is carbon fiber so it will shatter instead of bend.
Formula One cars are designed to disintegrate on impact. Each shard of carbon fibre carries energy away from the central crash structure. The halo has to maintain rigidity to maintain its structural integrity, which means that any energy passing through it will be passed into the central crash structure.
My main concern about the halo is that people will get complacent about safety. If you look at the three most-recent fatal accidents involving flying debris - Jacques Villeneuve's Melbourne crash, Henry Surtees' accident at Brands Hatch, and Justin Wilson's accident - you start to appreciate just how complex the crashes are. They are made up of any number of variables - speed, angle of impact, position on track, and so on - where if you can one by half a degree, you change the entire outcome of the race.
The reality is that you can put any number of safety devices in place, but there will always be a set of circumstances that results in a driver death. I am concerned that the halo will convince people that this no longer applies.
So, because it breaks, it's not doing anything to slow down the inbound object?
@prisonermonkeys. I don't think it will encourage complacency. Sure, it's not going to stop all fatalities but I'm not sure any device or measure can.
If it's a crash structure designed to prevent the driver from getting hit by things, and it breaks, then it's not doing its job.
I think you're probably asking too much. I would love to see racing have 100% safety, but realistically, I doubt that's going to happen in the near future. Hopefully somewhere down the line though.
Asking too much? If it's a device that goes over the driver's head, and it gets broken from an impact, then it's going right into the driver's head and the point of the device is rendered moot.
I don't think this would be a problem. You could go the NHRA route and have a latch system where a driver could hit a button and opens it.
Technically the halo device doesn't go over the drivers head, more in front of it. The device is there to help reduce the force/or possibly deflect the incoming object.
There's nothing wrong with asking too much, but there's also a need to be realistic. I mean potentially you could cocoon the driver in the center of the car, wrapped in bubble wrap, with full airbag support, in a fireproof shell. Maybe that's not asking too much either, but I doubt it's something the teams and drivers would go for. I imagine the car would be quite heavy and very long and wide. They may even have to change all of the existing tracks to accommodate the new formula.
Just to parrot something I said elsewhere:
Raikkönen's airbox fire has me worried about other hazards a halo presents. Brundle said it on the commentary as I was thinking it.
I thought of something else with this halo thing, that in an incident similar to Massa's, couldn't the halo potentially deflect the spring/debris down into the cockpit where there is virtually no protection for the driver's body. This would not be a issue with the Redbull design, so I hope they go with that one if anything.
I think it definitely could. As nasty as Massa's incident was it would have been far worse if the spring had hit him in the neck or chest. That's why I'd favour Red Bull's proposition out of the two we've seen so far.
I agree. It's definitely ticked the most boxes so far.
Having worked with both Acrylic (plexi) and Polycarbonate, I'd say that windscreen needs to be made out of poly. It really is tough stuff, even though it scratches quite easily.
Acrylic is too brittle when it comes to sudden impacts. Lexan all the way.
I know I've posted this before on GTP, but I think it's relevant to the discussion:
Aside from the frontal slot gap, it looks very similar to the Red Bull proposal. I still have no idea why single seaters aren't more covered - not from just a safety aspect, but also aesthetics and aerodynamic performance. They seemed to spark interest in the 50's and 60's, but obviously material technology was nothing like it was today, so they never really became popular.
I always think it's amusing that those who oppose closed cockpits because of "tradition" have it so backwards in their heads.
A Halo would have made Alonso's accident at weekend potentially much worse. Fernando had to crawl out the car with it up against the barrier. A halo design would have meant he would have either been stuck or have to squash his body into a gap to fit through, which if he had any unknown spinal or limb injuries, would have put much more pressure on them and made it much worse.
Although i'm not convinced by the prospect of a fully enclosed canopy (i'm no traditionalist BTW, Far from it infact). If they could make it work.. Would we see the return of open face helmets to F1? Be pretty cool to see the drivers facial expressions whilst racing.
I know I don't have to say it as it's common sense, but i'll say it anyway. A fully enclosed cockpit would have presented the same problems.
The only motorsport with open face helmets still is rallying, so probably not.
I doubt it. there's still the issue of a fire occurring inside the cockpit, or a possible cockpit intrusion, no matter how unlikely it would be. Both would possibly be fatal.
Which pretty much is telling of one thing regarding accidents like those: You cannot reliably predict where the debris will go each and everytime.
That one on the Ferrari wouldn't have done squat as that came at an angle that completely misses the front structure.
Makes me wonder what fans at the time made of the streamliner modifications back in the 50s for the high speed tracks, if they saw them as going against the "tradition" of open wheels.
I agree, though my point was more to that in this type of incident, had the spring hit the halo it could actually make things worse.
I think it's a very recent phenomenon, because people have nothing but endless praise for the innovation that took place back then. In period, I genuinely don't think anybody would've cared - it was all about making cars faster in any way possible. The Kurtis streamliners that had full canopies were actually banned because people thought they had too much of an advantage:
Motorsport is heading down a weird road. For a sport that prides itself of being at the forefront of technology, a staggering amount of fans believe the future lies in the past - everything modern is out to harm the sport; everything needs to be less efficient and more dangerous. I hope governing bodies never give in to such wishes, because we'll end with an absolute laughing stock of a sport.
The "it's too safe, all the drivers are wimping out" comments, apart from being wholly disturbing, are another example of wannabe-experts who are completely deluded. I'd love some of them to sit down and have a one-on-one chat with the likes of Jackie Stewart and get a serious awakening about the amount of effort that has gone into the sport to turn deaths from a weekly occurrence into, thankfully, a very rare one.
Of the four most recent deaths in F1, three were caused to people outside the cars and one to a driver who suffered indescribably heavy crash loads that no current solution could mitigate against. When one compares those four deaths in 15 (?) years to the number of deaths that would occur in each season (and then in only 8 or 10 races) I think it's clear to the fans that modern developments have led to incredibly safe race cars.
I simply cannot agree that a "staggering amount of fans" believe that "everything modern is out to harm the sport". If you're talking about regulation changes then that's something else - but then you shouldn't bundle it with a statement about technology.
I'm sorry, but who's is saying all this? Just in Saturday's F1 race, I saw nothing but people praising the safety of the car.
The only problem I have with this is that it's adding more weight to already heavy cars (at least in relative F1 terms), which will only lead to the cars being even worse to drive and the tires wearing out even quicker than they already do.
It certainly is clear, but that doesn't stop people from using it as an excuse to say that motorsport is but a shadow of its former self because people don't instantly die upon impact in the event of a crash. Very few people are as extreme as that, but I have seen such comments on a number of occasions. It's not pleasant to see.
I'm referring to the advent of hybrid technology and the downsizing trend. I'm not referring exclusively to F1 fans, I'm referring to fans of the sport in general - you only had to see the backlash against VW's electric rallycross plans in the past week to understand the extent to which modern technology is vilified by those who don't necessarily take an interest in the technological aspect of motorsport.
Just to be clear, I'm not referring to F1, or head protection. I'm venting about the unusual amount of technophobes who are prevalent in a technology based sport.
All the online platforms I've used in relation to motorsport, be it general social media chatting or through my freelance journalism has given me a pretty interesting look at what people want in motorsport. Engaging with modern F1 fans, WEC fans, rallycross fans, historic motorsport fans, motorsport technology enthusiasts and just general car fans who have a passing interest in racing throws up a lot of different ideas about the current state of motorsport. I can safely say that those who willingly accept hybridisation, smaller engines and alternative fuel sources as part of motorsport are in the minority. Just last week, I tried to knock some sense into someone who claimed that modern single seater drivers are "wimping out" by willingly driving cars that aren't likely to seriously injure them in the event of a crash.
GTP is a nice place to be, because everyone is generally sensible in their attitudes towards motorsport. I can accept that some people may take some time to warm to such sudden advancements in the sport, but there is a very big network of motorsport fans out there - unfortunately, some are quite daft - others simply sadistic.
At least you now say it's an extreme view, initially you implied it was the view of
I'd say you might be right but the way you initially presented your comments in an F1 Closed Cockpit thread naturally leads one to believe that a technophobic hankering for the 50s is somehow the prevailing mindset of F1 fans.
Late, but there it is. And still the wrong sport
Absolutely, I and many others here probably have the same experience and would most likely agree.
Again, what does this have to do with built-in head protection in F1 cars?
Who has used tradition as an excuse? I've not read anything like that.