Why is nobody discussing Bottas' Halo problems?

[Vettel Maggot]

The extraction video was hard to watch, halo makes it harder that is certain, plus the car kept moving around as he was trying to get out, if it still had an engine etc attached the car wouldn't give like that and offer a bit more wiggle room. It looked very awkward. Imagine trying to get out with some broken ribs or an arm injury.

[djos]

So a spring 1kg lump of metal hitting you in the chest at 100+mph is a flesh wound. Yeah ok, ill leave it at that, that one has just made me chuckle.

Just like to add, fires havent happened for 25years as you say, and before 2014 you'd be telling me no one is ever going to hit a JCB.

I dont get why you think the Halo has no risk, you design it by any chance ? Your surname Halo ?

I see the benefits, i also see the negatives, and you wont even acknowledge 1.

Not to mention all F1 cars have an FIA mandated

fire extinguishing system that will discharge into the cockpit and engine compartment in the event of a fire. It must be operable by the driver when he is seated normally with his seat belts on and must function even if the car’s main electrical circuit fails or if the car is inverted.

the full details are HERE.

This makes fire pretty damn unlikely to ever be an issue for drivers in a crash scenario.

[Jolle]

So a spring 1kg lump of metal hitting you in the chest at 100+mph is a flesh wound. Yeah ok, ill leave it at that, that one has just made me chuckle.

Just like to add, fires havent happened for 25years as you say, and before 2014 you'd be telling me no one is ever going to hit a JCB.

I dont get why you think the Halo has no risk, you design it by any chance ? Your surname Halo ?

I see the benefits, i also see the negatives, and you wont even acknowledge 1.

I’ll go one step further: because the halo is basically a V, any object hitting the halo wouldn’t deflect straight down,but (when hitting the underside) down and away from the driver to the side.

[djos]

So a spring 1kg lump of metal hitting you in the chest at 100+mph is a flesh wound. Yeah ok, ill leave it at that, that one has just made me chuckle.

Just like to add, fires havent happened for 25years as you say, and before 2014 you'd be telling me no one is ever going to hit a JCB.

I dont get why you think the Halo has no risk, you design it by any chance ? Your surname Halo ?

I see the benefits, i also see the negatives, and you wont even acknowledge 1.

I’ll go one step further: because the halo is basically a V, any object hitting the halo wouldn’t deflect straight down,but (when hitting the underside) down and away from the driver to the side.

You are oversimplifying it - different shapes, with different moments of inertia, hitting at different angles will all behave differently. It's simply impossible to say that with any certainty.

[turbof1]

So a spring 1kg lump of metal hitting you in the chest at 100+mph is a flesh wound. Yeah ok, ill leave it at that, that one has just made me chuckle.

Just like to add, fires havent happened for 25years as you say, and before 2014 you'd be telling me no one is ever going to hit a JCB.

I dont get why you think the Halo has no risk, you design it by any chance ? Your surname Halo ?

I see the benefits, i also see the negatives, and you wont even acknowledge 1.

First off, please calm down. Jolle did not want to downplay the impact of a deflected projectile onto the body, hence why he also mentioned a broken arm.

Second, I don't believe it will result in a broken arm. Everything except the head is tucked away in the survival tub. It might reach the chest. However, if it first collided with the Halo, a lot of kynetic energy will be taken out of the object and thus the impact will be less of a risk.

[Jolle]

So a spring 1kg lump of metal hitting you in the chest at 100+mph is a flesh wound. Yeah ok, ill leave it at that, that one has just made me chuckle.

Just like to add, fires havent happened for 25years as you say, and before 2014 you'd be telling me no one is ever going to hit a JCB.

I dont get why you think the Halo has no risk, you design it by any chance ? Your surname Halo ?

I see the benefits, i also see the negatives, and you wont even acknowledge 1.

I’ll go one step further: because the halo is basically a V, any object hitting the halo wouldn’t deflect straight down,but (when hitting the underside) down and away from the driver to the side.

You are oversimplifying it - different shapes, with different moments of inertia, hitting at different angles will all behave differently. It's simply impossible to say that with any certainty.

It's basics dynamics. If an object hits a surface, it deflects depending on he angle and it hits. Objects will, within a few degree, comes from the front. To be deflected into the path of the driver, you have to have a surface of the right angle. There is none.

[turbof1]

I’ll go one step further: because the halo is basically a V, any object hitting the halo wouldn’t deflect straight down,but (when hitting the underside) down and away from the driver to the side.

You are oversimplifying it - different shapes, with different moments of inertia, hitting at different angles will all behave differently. It's simply impossible to say that with any certainty.

It's basics dynamics. If an object hits a surface, it deflects depending on he angle and it hits. Objects will, within a few degree, comes from the front. To be deflected into the path of the driver, you have to have a surface of the right angle. There is none.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/im ... aaikir.jpg

Yeah one can see they really thought this through. Either it deflects downwards in front of the driver (so on the bulkhead), or it deflects away from the driver.

Interesting, I never wondered about the specific shape of the Halo. But come to look of it, this is what the FIA exactly did. This is not a knee-jerk solution; they really assessed potential risks and applied solutions.

[NathanOlder]

So now F1 cars not only necer catch on fire, they now only travel in a straight line. If your turning through a corner objects can come at you from an angle, which messes up your Y shape Halo protector. That will only work if the car is heading in a straight line.

When the red mist is about, people cant read whats in front of them. I've saidultiple times the Halo will stop objects hitting a driver, but Jolle is trying to tell me it will scoop up all debry deflect it away like some sort of Ninja Halo ? I've heard it all now.

[turbof1]

So now F1 cars not only necer catch on fire, they now only travel in a straight line. If your turning through a corner objects can come at you from an angle, which messes up your Y shape Halo protector. That will only work if the car is heading in a straight line.

When the red mist is about, people cant read whats in front of them. I've saidultiple times the Halo will stop objects hitting a driver, but Jolle is trying to tell me it will scoop up all debry deflect it away like some sort of Ninja Halo ? I've heard it all now.

That's not what he is saying. He is saying that the shape of the tubes is made in such way, even at the sides, that deflection of any debris hitting the tubes will be deflected away. I think if objects come from the side, it is more likely they hit the driver directly than hitting the halo, but that is no different than the current situation.

There is always a chance that debris get deflected towards the driver. However, now the debris has to travel that low to be deflection towards the correct vector, that they most likely would have hit the driver even without the halo. Deflection means energy being taken away from the driver, so it is still safer. The exception perhaps being something extremely sharp objects which requires less kynetic energy to penetrate driver's body protection.

Also nobody said cars cannot catch fire anymore. It only has become very unlikely and even less likely to pose a threat to the driver. I also believe nothing that can catch fire in the first place sits in the survival cell. I think the only issue I really see with the halo is getting stuck in the car with fumes taking away oxygen. However, we already discussed that the marshalls will have specific cutters to remove the side tube from the halo and extract the driver rather quickly.

[Jolle]

So now F1 cars not only necer catch on fire, they now only travel in a straight line. If your turning through a corner objects can come at you from an angle, which messes up your Y shape Halo protector. That will only work if the car is heading in a straight line.

When the red mist is about, people cant read whats in front of them. I've saidultiple times the Halo will stop objects hitting a driver, but Jolle is trying to tell me it will scoop up all debry deflect it away like some sort of Ninja Halo ? I've heard it all now.

Point one: Yes, cars simply don't catch fire anymore after an accident. If they do, there are fire crews on hand within seconds, the drivers are equipped with 30s of protection, there is a fire suppressor system in the car and the current protocols are that a drives shouldn't get out by himself after a big impact. For instance, what Alonso did after his last big shunt was wrong. He should have remained in his seat an be lifted out by the crew.

When, if there was, was according to you, in whatever open wheel series, the last time a driver had to bail out of his car and would be stuck there because of a halo?

point two, within a few degrees: yes, a F1 car is, at speed where an object is a possible problem traveling in a straight line. The FIA conclusion that there is a 17% less risk of being hit by an object seems to be a good conclusion. How much yaw do they have in the Parabolica for instance? 4deg? not even I think.

[turbof1]

So now F1 cars not only necer catch on fire, they now only travel in a straight line. If your turning through a corner objects can come at you from an angle, which messes up your Y shape Halo protector. That will only work if the car is heading in a straight line.

When the red mist is about, people cant read whats in front of them. I've saidultiple times the Halo will stop objects hitting a driver, but Jolle is trying to tell me it will scoop up all debry deflect it away like some sort of Ninja Halo ? I've heard it all now.

Point one: Yes, cars simply don't catch fire anymore after an accident. If they do, there are fire crews on hand within seconds, the drivers are equipped with 30s of protection, there is a fire suppressor system in the car and the current protocols are that a drives shouldn't get out by himself after a big impact. For instance, what Alonso did after his last big shunt was wrong. He should have remained in his seat an be lifted out by the crew.

When, if there was, was according to you, in whatever open wheel series, the last time a driver had to bail out of his car and would be stuck there because of a halo?

point two, within a few degrees: yes, a F1 car is, at speed where an object is a possible problem traveling in a straight line. The FIA conclusion that there is a 17% less risk of being hit by an object seems to be a good conclusion. How much yaw do they have in the Parabolica for instance? 4deg? not even I think.

Oh damn, I misunderstood NathanOlder. I thought he talked about yaw when he was talking about track camber.

[NathanOlder]

Turbo, deflection doesn't mean it will slow down. Think about it before you reply. If an object (lets say a T-Camera from the top of the car) is cart wheeling down the track at and has slowed to 30mph and another car comes through blanchimont at 190mph, the camera hits the underside of the halo and deflects down or probably smashed into many small sharp pieces, they will be moving faster than the 30mph. So things dont always slow down

[NathanOlder]

And Jolle , f1 cars slide around a lot, so moving sideways happens a great deal.

Example, Max in Free Practice at monza. Sliding sideways over 220kph.

Halo is not perfect. Just admit it and we can move on.

[turbof1]

Turbo, deflection doesn't mean it will slow down. Think about it before you reply. If an object (lets say a T-Camera from the top of the car) is cart wheeling down the track at and has slowed to 30mph and another car comes through blanchimont at 190mph, the camera hits the underside of the halo and deflects down or probably smashed into many small sharp pieces, they will be moving faster than the 30mph. So things dont always slow down

No it will slow down relative to the car speed. You are dealing with 2 opposing vectors. Say they are perfectly aligned, with the debris moving at 30 mph and the car 180 mph. When such piece has an unobstructed path to the driver, it will hit with 230mph. But, deflection will always take a chunk out of it. Even when the object is fragmented by the impact. Infact, a lot of the energy is dissipated by the object disintegrating.

Something with a physics background will probably more able to explain this. Perhaps the best example how disintegration dissipates energy, is the front crash structure, which has to meet specific deacceleration numbers through crumbling upon impact to dissipate as much energy as possible during a crash.

[NathanOlder]

But the whole thing I'm saying is, the piece isn't on a path the driver until it hits the halo.