GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => Pit Pass => Topic started by: Scott on July 28, 2016, 08:17:34 PM
-
..for 2017, while Vettel offers up a plea in its defence.
The windscreen would have the advantage of being able to (hopefully) prevent small, but hard objects from flying into the cockpit to strike a driver (a la Massa's accident). The halo would prevent bigger things like wheels or even barriers from making contact with a drivers head.
However this whole safety direction is the result of the Bianchi accident, where I don't think either solution would have had much effect on the outcome. Prevention of a similar accident to that is really quite simple. Do not allow tractors on the track to retrieve a stranded car unless it is on an inside corner, well away from the track, or a Safety Car has come onto the track and is leading a field running at less than half racing speed while the tractor goes to work. Wake up FIA, that is the simplest way to prevent another Bianchi type accident. And who is to say the Halo or some reinforced windscreen could possibly absorb the force needed to lift a 12 ton tractor off the ground like Bianchi's car did.
http://www.pitpass.com/56877/Vettel-Nothing-justifies-death
-
Wurz has some words of wisdom for the Halo...and maybe a couple for Bernie.
http://www.pitpass.com/56882/Wurz-surprised-by-Halo-U-turn
-
And Horner has a counterpoint, which is really just spin. Likely the real problem is the Halo would bugger up their aero plans for next year which are certainly in advanced development, and that is the sole reason the teams are against a 2017 introduction. A couple of drivers 'aren't completely happy with it' is pretty weak.
They can still develop a better version for 2018, but in the mean time, the cars would have a version they can use to figure out the pros and cons of the basic idea while having available the proper anchor points already integrated into the car to use for testing further versions. And at the same time have some added head protection for the drivers...win, win.
http://www.pitpass.com/56883/Horner-Halo-needs-development
http://www.pitpass.com/56883/Horner-Halo-needs-development
-
I disagree. F1 has always been open wheel, open cockpit racing. The deaths that have occurred over the last few years have been freak accidents caused by a perfect storm of conditions unlikely to be repeated. The only one that the halo might have saved was Dan Wheldon. The halo could be the final straw that causes me to stop watching.
-
I disagree. F1 has always been open wheel, open cockpit racing. The deaths that have occurred over the last few years have been freak accidents caused by a perfect storm of conditions unlikely to be repeated. The only one that the halo might have saved was Dan Wheldon. The halo could be the final straw that causes me to stop watching.
F1 has long been many other things it no longer is. I agree it's sad when it loses something that makes it 'special'. On the other hand it is a safety element. Just because the halo wouldn't prevent some deaths that have happened doesn't mean it won't prevent other possible deaths.
The FIA is nominally a body that brings awareness to automotive safety. With F1 being their crown jewel, they don't want it looking like a blood sport.
-
Halo 2 wasn't properly tested; it had had 3 laps from 2 drivers, and 1 of them had (possibly minor) problems using it due to visibility and comfort. Also, one wheel test appears to have been translated to "invulnerability to large, heavy objects", even through a Wurz/Coulthard Australia 2007-style accident (or Alonso/Grosjean Spa 2012 or /Raikkonen Austria 2015) would likely break a titanium bar in a way even the steel bars used on Halo 1 would not (due to titanium's strength being directional). I am glad about this, as I think Halo 2 in its current form is more dangerous than doing nothing, and that the FIA would not have found the implementation method that avoided lawsuits. A better-researched version is something I could see being put on an F1 car, but not until it's ready for use, please.