|
Post by stonemonkey on Jul 20, 2017 18:13:34 GMT
While I'm not a fan of the halo, I don't see how the screen solutions could work, there's a reason drivers have tear offs on their visors and what would visibility be like in the rain? I can also imaging visibility problems with the halo too though so think more testing is needed.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jul 20, 2017 18:19:34 GMT
Full enclosed regulated, crash tested, standardized cockpit, anything else would be a compromise. So why not leave things as they are? It's what the fans, the drivers and the teams are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jul 22, 2017 11:46:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by London on Jul 22, 2017 13:54:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by London on Jul 22, 2017 13:55:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jul 22, 2017 14:43:14 GMT
fixed it now.
|
|
|
Post by Hammer on Jul 22, 2017 16:25:10 GMT
I still think the element of danger can never be completely negated. Moreover, they are paid ridiculous amounts for a reason, part of the sport is about braving the larger possibility of death/injury at any time - it's why their insurance premiums must be huge.
If the FIA is pressured into altering the DNA of the sport itself, something is wrong. They need to reaffirum their stance that the sport is dangerous, its open wheel open cockpit racing and that's how it should stay. Instead, they went ahead testing these dumb solutions and now they've put pressure on themselves to put a band aid solution to cover their own ass in case some shit happens. When they should've said SHIT CAN HAPPEN, if you don't like it don't watch it or don't race in these cars. No one's died except 1 person in the last couple of decades and that's a fair statistic when looking at the number of cars out on track and the time spent on track in this entire duration.
|
|
|
Post by London on Jul 22, 2017 20:57:38 GMT
No one's died except 1 person in the last couple of decades and that's a fair statistic when looking at the number of cars out on track and the time spent on track in this entire duration Exact. There is nothing to indicate that head protection is such a serious concern that this thing needs to come in immediately. The Halo wouldnt even have kept Bianchi alive or keep Felipe Massa's head safe. What happened to Bianchi is a succession of making bad decisions by the FIA which have resulted in what we know. The main argument of Todt, is that it is necessary to protect the head of the big debris: the biggest debris in F1 are the tires but they are attached. We have not seen it come off for years. For small carbon debris, the halo brings nothing. The Danger is a factor that can not be mastered even by having the safest cars and circuits possible. One thing that is sure is that the reflexes must be modified:
|
|
|
Post by London on Jul 22, 2017 21:11:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dogued on Jul 23, 2017 6:43:43 GMT
The main argument of Todt, is that it is necessary to protect the head of the big debris: the biggest debris in F1 are the tires but they are attached. We have not seen it come off for years. For small carbon debris, the halo brings nothing. Perez, Baku, wheel came off. but generally, we don't see them bouncing off down the road anymore. The problem is that the FIA backed themselves into a corner, and the teams haven't helped. In 2016, cockpit head protection was written into the rules for 2017. The teams begged and pleaded with the FIA to allow more time to come up with a better option than the Halo. The FIA finally agreed and wrote the requirement into the 2018 rules. The teams then proceeded to drag their heals and nobody has spent serious time on designing a better option. The Ferrari Shield was slapped together and didn't take into account things such as the Bucha effect caused by the flickering reflections between the helmet and curvature of the shield. This left Vettel feeling dizzy. And so we have a situation where the FIA have no choice but to select the only real tested option; the Halo. Teams are happy to spend millions of pounds and hundreds of work hours inventing a 5cm strip of carbon that may improve lap times 0.000001s per lap, but kept putting cockpit protection in the "maybe someone else will do it" or "maybe the FIA will forget about it" basket. Now, regarding the Halo... FIA simulations have shown a significantly less chance of debris impact with the Halo in place. Even with a Massa-style small part, there was enough data to suggest it would be significantly effective. Note that "significantly effective" might only be a 15% less chance, but it still lowers the overall risk. So from their point of view, it will cover their ass somewhat. Interestingly, they have said that teams will be allowed to add "flares" to the halo (except the central support) to offset it's effect on airflow. I'm waiting for the first team to put "devil horns" on it
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Jul 23, 2017 9:24:52 GMT
Tried to sign this, the email verification link just said, oops we can't find this page. Tried a second time and it said there's an error with your signature.
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Jul 25, 2017 12:30:26 GMT
Safety over appearance, screw you traditionalists.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jul 25, 2017 12:35:30 GMT
Safety over appearance, screw you traditionalists. Who says you can't have both?
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Jul 25, 2017 12:48:19 GMT
Safety over appearance, screw you traditionalists. Who says you can't have both? We can, but an ugly but safe option is far better to be added now than wait for an attractive solution to be made. Appearances can be worked on even though just like with the sound, the hate for the new change will fade away. Change is hard to get used to but give them time and you will.
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Jul 25, 2017 13:02:38 GMT
That's where your argument falls flat, safe? What's the definition of safe? This would help against only ONE type of accident where one car comes up and over another. It could also hamper a driver from escaping or hinder driver extrication. This is being rushed through. It is a compromise to prevent lawsuits more than to protect drivers.
If the FiA wanted to mandate safety they look into a standardized enclosed canopy that teams would then integrate into their car design.
I'm not against it on the grounds of it adding safety, I'm against it on the grounds of being a compromised and somewhat hypocritical knee jerk reaction to a lawsuit as seen by the Bianchi family.
|
|
|
Post by RyRy on Jul 25, 2017 13:25:19 GMT
It protects against much more than that, a roll of the car into barriers, a tyre, a crash and more. It's ten times safer than having nothing above them.
The halo passed the 5 second escape test so it doesn't really hamper them that much.
The slight negative of being fractionally slower out of the car is made up for in other forms of protection.
The 5 seconds escape test is there to make sure they can get out fast in a fire but with the vastly improved overalls, Internal fire extinguishers and better / more marshals this 5 second escape could be easily increased .
|
|
|
Post by London on Jul 27, 2017 0:30:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by London on Aug 3, 2017 14:37:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wß on Aug 3, 2017 16:27:11 GMT
I laughed when I read that too. Seems like the ink in dry on the deal already and we've got a halo no matter what. Only to be changed when there's a public outcry next year... or perhaps the teams will be able to put some nice looking lipstick on this pig and sell it wholesale.
|
|
|
Post by racechick on Aug 3, 2017 17:43:26 GMT
Who is George Russell? I'm not sure having a little stool in the cockpit to get in and out is a good idea. And it's great that vision is good at sundown, but what about the rest of the time? Most of the time?
|
|