HALO Approved for 2018

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
Scorpaguy
19
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:05 am

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

HALO...for it or against it, we all had/have our opinions. However, Gros just stated from his hospital bed, "greatest thing brought to F1". His opinion carries a lot of weight today.

astracrazy
astracrazy
56
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

thestig84 wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:30 pm
astracrazy wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:48 pm
It saved his life today 100%. It has already saved potential major injury too in Spa 2018 when Alonso's car hit the halo and not Leclerc's head.

Nico's crash - he even admitted himself he wasn't sure if the Halo was even in his way (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... prix-crash) and the car did catch fire with that one. All be in no where near today.

Stroll crash today - non issue, he was able to escape easily. Easiest of the three.

Grosjean by far had the hardest escape of all three in the worst circumstances and was able to do so.

Could it be made easier? I have always been surprised they haven't looked into the sides being able to release if needed.

Personally though I think the focus of investigation from todays will be the barriers. That should not happen in 2020.
You simply cannot say it 100% saved his life. I am very thankful for it being fitted today but we won't continue to learn by guessing it 100% saved him. What if barrier actually got caught on halo leading central pillar and actually pulled him in!? I am not saying this happened but we need to still investigate in case there is along those lines to learn and improve.
Well it 100% did, the last time a driver went through a barrier like that he was decapitated.

Just because i think it saved his life doesn't mean that the accident can not be learnt from? Where did I say or suggest that?

There are a lot of what ifs from the accident, but the one i am 100% sure of is no halo no survival.

As bad as it sounds, the sport needs 1 in a million crashes to learn and make safety corrections, this for me shows improvements are needed with the barriers.

User avatar
ringo
236
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:57 am

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

What we can also say is that the aero screen would not have stood up the way the Halo did here.
For Sure!!

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
704
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

ringo wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:58 am
What we can also say is that the aero screen would not have stood up the way the Halo did here.
Here's what I wrote about that in the other halo thread:
Would the impact with the aeroscreen shown in the thread, with the vertical supports midway back along the screen and no front support, have deflected the armco barrier? Or would the barrier have broken the plastic and then lodged under the hoop and so made the space available to exit much smaller? Would broken pieces of the plastic have become lethal "knives" that would be flying towards the driver or even just bent around by the armco and so presenting "teeth" to the driver as he was trying to evacuate from the tub?

These are the sorts of questions that would need to be answered to know whether the aeroscreen would have been as good as the halo.

The aeroscreen requires a halo-type device to provide the real strength to the device, so that tells us that the screen part is not as strong as the halo is on its own.

The key issue with the aeroscreen is: does it present an increasing risk of driver injury in the even of an impact leading to structural failure of the plastic in the screen? Sure, it's "bulletproof" plastic, but we are talking about loads orders of magnitude higher than any bulletproof plastic will be designed to handle.

Then there is the other question: is the issue that the barriers aren't good enough? It appears that armco type barriers are not suitable unless faced with something else to prevent penetration by the tub. A triple layer of tyres with conveyor belt fronting would probably have been enough to prevent the penetration and the impact forces that caused the car to fail. A cheap thing to add to any such barrier. Would that have resulted in a driver loading that exceeded the 54g received by Grosjean? Perhaps. But it would have been without the fire.
Perhaps the mods should merge the two currently running halo threads?
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
704
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

thestig84 wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:30 pm
You simply cannot say it 100% saved his life. I am very thankful for it being fitted today but we won't continue to learn by guessing it 100% saved him. What if barrier actually got caught on halo leading central pillar and actually pulled him in!? I am not saying this happened but we need to still investigate in case there is along those lines to learn and improve.
You absolutely can say it saved his life. 100%. You can see the witness mark on the upper armco where the front of the halo pushed the top rail upwards and over the driver's head. The centre rail has just been punched through by the front of the tub. The front face of the roll hoop didn't go through the barrier - the T-camera is still in place on top of the roll hoop so there wasn't penetration further than the front face of the roll hoop before the pendulum masses at the rear of the car rotated the tub and it quarter rolled around and below the top rail of the armco.

Without the halo, the first thing to hit the top rail of the armco would have been Grosjean's helmet visor. If that had happened, the fire wouldn't have mattered because he'd have been dead before it caught fire.

Image
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

User avatar
AMG.Tzan
33
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:35 am
Location: Greece

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

Another thing that came to my mind is the discussion everyone was having if F1 should adopt a full on canopy instead of the halo back in 2018...like a jet fighter!

Well Grosjean's accident shows that a canopy would have trapped him inside his cockpit until the marshals were able to remove the monocoque from the guardrail! Who knows how that would have ended...

That was a freak accident...one of those that happens once in a very long time, just like Bianchi's! It could easily have been fatal were it not for the halo and a lot of luck! If i didn't know what happened in the accident and just saw the picture above, i would have been sure that the driver died (burned alive)!

Grosjean was lucky in his unluckiness...look where the T-cam stopped the car! The car didn't go to the other side of the guardrail because of the T-cam but there was lady luck to the rescue...there was just enough space between the halo and the guardrail for Grosjean to get out immediately! Thank God...

The question that FIA and F1 in general have to answer now? Well...why so much fire in 2020?? I thought fireball accidents stopped in the 70s...
"The only rule is there are no rules" - Aristotle Onassis

User avatar
nzjrs
108
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:21 am
Location: Austria

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

It's no surprise that through 50 years of continual safety improvements luck (in either direction) is the deciding factor in crashes these days.

User avatar
Big Tea
153
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

I thought it had been decided that all ' triple barrier type' fencing had to be faced with belt to stop ingress or wedging following the result of accidents in other series where cars dived under the barrier? There are also usually bound tyres for the same reason.

Not an expert on the rules, just seem to remember it. could it be that the barrier was in a place no one expected it to be struck? It is not the 'usual' track
I know that's a stupid statement because unexpected accidents are always in the wrong place or time.
We are standing on the shoulders of Giants. So don't kick.

joshuagore
joshuagore
1
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:01 am

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

I'm being lazy, but that looks like the halo imprint on the steel. The forehead isn't far from the halo, Ignoring the structural force of the carbon shell on the helmet, there are still compressive forces on the spine (and a nice ramp on the helmet). I can't imagine the steel somehow not pinching his head unless the halo was there to make the opening larger, without the halo those forces enter the spine, and below that is an ass fitted to a carbon tub with mm of foam, and nothing like my fat ass between the two. It's my humble opinion there is no other opinion than the Halo saved a life. Ohh and this one professional racing driver who had a horrible accident and survived is telling me so, but what does mister crash know about surviving impacts. Also did anyone catch that stat, Grosjean has had 10 podiums? I'm so forgetful.

User avatar
subcritical71
97
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:04 pm
Location: USA-Florida

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

ringo wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:58 am
What we can also say is that the aero screen would not have stood up the way the Halo did here.
Why not, the aeroscreen can take loads greater than the halo?
AMG.Tzan wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:28 am
Well Grosjean's accident shows that a canopy would have trapped him inside his cockpit until the marshals were able to remove the monocoque from the guardrail! Who knows how that would have ended...
The fire was outside of the canopy, so if he were 'enclosed' in the cockpit it would give rescue workers additional time to get to him and put the fire out before the tub is compromised and maybe the fire would not have reached his hands and helmet so quickly.



I'm not saying the aeroscreen is the answer. I just don't agree that we can say the aeroscreen would not have worked in this incident. To my knowledge it was never tested for this scenario (neither was the halo until yesterday). I hope the FIA are looking at all new technology and not just happy with what has been implemented until the next driver is seriously hurt.

I believe it was said last year that a fuel fire was a next to zero risk in a modern F1 car. Assuming this was a fuel fire I think that risk has gone up quite a bit now. How long has the ATL fuel bladder been standard equipment with no real design improvements.

User avatar
jjn9128
519
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

The aeroscreen is a halo with a plastic screen. Same load rating. The reason the screen failed FIA tests was the lower side around the back where it joined the cockpit surround - driver could be hit in angled cases. This is why the indycar screen is higher at the rear.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
23
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:56 pm
The aeroscreen is a halo with a plastic screen. Same load rating. The reason the screen failed FIA tests was the lower side around the back where it joined the cockpit surround - driver could be hit in angled cases. This is why the indycar screen is higher at the rear.
Yes, I was under the impression that IndyCar buy the halo from the same supplier that F1/fia does and then add the plastic around it. The only difference being that the F1 tubs are mandated to go thru higher load test because they are specifically designed for the halo whereas it is more of an add/bolt on part for the IndyCar tub which was designed over 5 years ago.

Diesel
Diesel
74
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:27 pm
Location: ...

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:56 pm
The aeroscreen is a halo with a plastic screen. Same load rating. The reason the screen failed FIA tests was the lower side around the back where it joined the cockpit surround - driver could be hit in angled cases. This is why the indycar screen is higher at the rear.
Pretty sure it lacks the central titanium pillar of the halo though? Which is what appeared to lever the barrier out of the way instead of it hitting Grosjeans helmet.
"Unbelievable how silly this Formula 1 is these days, with this stupid overtakes."
—Sebastian Vettel, 2012 US GP

ENGINE TUNER
ENGINE TUNER
23
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:07 pm

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

Diesel wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:14 pm
jjn9128 wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:56 pm
The aeroscreen is a halo with a plastic screen. Same load rating. The reason the screen failed FIA tests was the lower side around the back where it joined the cockpit surround - driver could be hit in angled cases. This is why the indycar screen is higher at the rear.
Pretty sure it lacks the central titanium pillar of the halo though? Which is what appeared to lever the barrier out of the way instead of it hitting Grosjeans helmet.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/motorsport ... creen/amp/

Easily seen here

Diesel
Diesel
74
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:27 pm
Location: ...

Re: HALO Approved for 2018

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:35 am
I thought it had been decided that all ' triple barrier type' fencing had to be faced with belt to stop ingress or wedging following the result of accidents in other series where cars dived under the barrier? There are also usually bound tyres for the same reason.

Not an expert on the rules, just seem to remember it. could it be that the barrier was in a place no one expected it to be struck? It is not the 'usual' track
I know that's a stupid statement because unexpected accidents are always in the wrong place or time.
I also wondered this, I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a tyre wall with a belt infront of all metal barriers, regardless of their location.
"Unbelievable how silly this Formula 1 is these days, with this stupid overtakes."
—Sebastian Vettel, 2012 US GP