Why is nobody discussing Bottas' Halo problems?

[digitalrurouni]

so do people really want to see the back of open cockpit racing ? Because thats basically what its going to take to put peoples minds at rest.

Once the cockpits are closed , then what ? closed wheels ?

If they look anything like this concept from Newey, I'm not going to complain.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/86/bf/cd ... 6d6aff.jpg

Hundred times this. I say we should have F1 cars looking like that!

[Restomaniac]

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.

True but at the speeds we are generally talking about (100 MPH+) they won't be tight cornering. For something to be coming in at the angles involved (~90 degrees ) it would need to be in a tight corner or it would still be in front of the car. That would knock the speed down.

Is the halo perfect? No.
Can I see the '17% safer' being true. Totally.

I understand you are making the point that it stops it being open cockpit. However would you accept another death that could have been avoided just for that reason? I'm not being argumentative BTW it's a genuine question.

[Restomaniac]

I see what you are saying and I've always said I see why they have brought it in. I just feel they are reacting to other formulas rather than their own.

In that last few sentences of yours, why are the FIA waiting ? Why not introduce a kevlar suit now ? Carbon fibre parta wil smash to pieces right on top of the driver, like a grenade going off next to him.

1 final question, in the history of the sport, how many people have been killed by wheels becoming unattached ?

Then, of those you list, how many would have still died if they had todays wheel tethers.

Concerning a wheel, only one case (Surtees 2009). A very, very unfortunate with a very low probability.

But, it is not only for blocking wheels that this hideous thing is designed for. For instance (but certainly not limited to) rhere have been quite a few cases where a complete car has been sliding over the nose and things like splitter or floor getting dangerously close to the driver's head. The crash between Alonso and Raikkonen in Austria 2015 comes to mind. Those cases ended well, but it also exposed a problem that there's nothing stopping a driver's head being crushed when the car on top of the tub has more momentum.

The Halo is designed to handled that!

Mind this is not a solution for the Bianchi crash. Infact, I doubt there ever will be one, other than changes in crash procedure protocol (which have been made).

The Bianchi death couldn't be stopped. Not until we find a way to stop a drivers own internal momentum could a driver survive that kind of deceleration. Which Is quite simply not possible.

Not having a JCB on the damn track however.... I'm not making light of it but that horrific death started and had a sole reason of a JCB being on a live race track and the VSC WOULD have solved it anyway. So the kind of incident shouldn't today even be possible (as you say).

[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.

True but at the speeds we are generally talking about (100 MPH+) they won't be tight cornering. For something to be coming in at the angles involved (~90 degrees ) it would need to be in a tight corner or it would still be in front of the car. That would knock the speed down.

Is the halo perfect? No.
Can I see the '17% safer' being true. Totally.

I understand you are making the point that it stops it being open cockpit. However would you accept another death that could have been avoided just for that reason? I'm not being argumentative BTW it's a genuine question.

Its still open cockpit with the halo, it just isn't a perfect devicelike Jolle is trying to have me believe.

When was the last death that the halo would have stopped ? As you say another death that could have been avoided. Not forgetting the improvements that have been made after near all fatalities. Senna would have been saved by the tethers. The main reason the halo is in is stoppjng flying wheels ? Thats why we have tethers, and if they aren't up to it, double their thickness and strengths.

[Restomaniac]

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.

True but at the speeds we are generally talking about (100 MPH+) they won't be tight cornering. For something to be coming in at the angles involved (~90 degrees ) it would need to be in a tight corner or it would still be in front of the car. That would knock the speed down.

Is the halo perfect? No.
Can I see the '17% safer' being true. Totally.

I understand you are making the point that it stops it being open cockpit. However would you accept another death that could have been avoided just for that reason? I'm not being argumentative BTW it's a genuine question.

Its still open cockpit with the halo, it just isn't a perfect devicelike Jolle is trying to have me believe.

When was the last death that the halo would have stopped ? As you say another death that could have been avoided. Not forgetting the improvements that have been made after near all fatalities. The main reason the halo is in is stoppjng flying wheels ? Thats why we have tethers, and if they aren't up to it, double their thickness and strengths.

I never said it was perfect but I'll take the 17% every time.
The Baku flying wheel wasn't down to the tethers IIRC it was the anchor points and part of the drive assembly coming with it. No doubling of the tethers strength will solve that problem. Everything has to have a breaking point. Halo just adds another level of protection which should really be the whole point.

[NathanOlder]

So instead of improving anchor points, they ignore it and add something else ?

[Restomaniac]

So instead of improving anchor points, they ignore it and add something else ?

Anchor it to where? It already anchored to the strongest part of the car and in this case it took that part with it. To improve that you have to mandate stronger (and no doubt heavier) structures and then they will have a weakness where they are attached so will have to be attached to each other. I'm just picturing it now.
FIA 'We need to add more Titanium structures on all 4 corners for the tethers and attach them to each other'.
Teams 'You are joking. That will add loads of weight'
FIA 'Sorry but it's either that or the halo'
Teams 'Halo'.

The point is that the only way to realistically stop a wheel and it's attachment coming off is to make a full car structure otherwise there will always be a weak link.

[NathanOlder]

Improving wheel safety not only benefits the drivers, it benefits the marshalls, pit crews and fans too. But i guess no one cares about them.

Your telling me that adding weight to the cars is not worth the extra safety now ?

As for the teams not wanting the extra weight, the Halo was forced on them, so why cant extra wheel tether safety be the same.

[Restomaniac]

Improving wheel safety not only benefits the drivers, it benefits the marshalls, pit crews and fans too. But i guess no one cares about them.

Your telling me that adding weight to the cars is not worth the extra safety now ?

As for the teams not wanting the extra weight, the Halo was forced on them, so why cant extra wheel tether safety be the same.

Marshalls, pit crews and fans are not in the direct firing line when cars are at full speed they are either dealing with cars at reduced speeds (pit crews) or they are behind safety fencing at full speeds.

I'd put good money that the added extra weight to all 4 corners and the connections between needed will easily overshadow the weight of the halo.
Remember that in Baku the full assembly became detached, so in that instance you have to strengthen what that is attached to too, then strengthen the next link in the chain, and the next, and the next, etc.

Can we cut to the chase here? It's obvious your major problem with the halo is how it looks. That's fine but why the pretence?

[NathanOlder]

I've always said i dont like ugly looks, and if anyone says they like the way it looks, then they are just plain lying.

My main problem is when people like jolle keep telling me its all goo and wont accept that it brings some negatives. Thats why this chat has gone on so long.

As for the weight of stengthening the tether mounts, of course they will be heavier than the halo , but at least they won't be stuck up on top of the car like the halo

[Restomaniac]

I've always said i dont like ugly looks, and if anyone says they like the way it looks, then they are just plain lying.

My main problem is when people like jolle keep telling me its all goo and wont accept that it brings some negatives. Thats why this chat has gone on so long.

As for the weight of stengthening the tether mounts, of course they will be heavier than the halo , but at least they won't be stuck up on top of the car like the halo

Thanks for the honestly. I think it's ugly as sin myself. However I have no doubt about the 17% mentioned.
In the past 12 months we have actually had a full nose cone come off (Singapore) and a wheel and the assembly its attached to come off (Baku). We have had numerous punctures one of which IIRC had the tyre carcass rolling down the track. Look at the Alonso/Raikkonen situation we had one car perched on top of another and that wasn't that long ago.

I get your point about Jolle though.

For me it's a simple fact of can we make the cars safer? If so then yes we should do that as losing another driver doesn't bear a thinking about.
We have numerous options to that end. In the situation we are talking about we can either use the halo which makes them a bit heavier and so a little slower but uglier or we make them a lot heavier and slower and no less ugly. Plus remember that still doesn't touch the loss of a nose cone, a carcass rolling down the track and a car on another car which still needs fixing.

Bearing in mind that the current cars are still not the best looking in the world compared to cars from other years the last thing I want is for them to lose is their speed and still be only around 5% safer when we can have around 17% with another option.

[NathanOlder]

Yeah very true.

What would be interesting is if we could have a poll put to the drivers, teams & fans simply

Do you think todays cars are safe enough.

[Restomaniac]

Yeah very true.

What would be interesting is if we could have a poll put to the drivers, teams & fans simply

Do you think todays cars are safe enough.

We should always strive for more physical safety. Bearing in mind that we have cars traveling at 200MPH+

I'll put it like this. Just how close was Wehrlein in Monaco? Too damn close for my liking, yet with the halo he is safe as houses (SIC).

Give me the second if slightly uglier option every time. We could say 'balls to it they know the risk' and take it all off (safety features) but we don't because we don't want to see drivers die. This is just the next step on making it less likely that a driver dies (I could use a certain meme of Dolf Lundgren to make the point but it won't because if find it distasteful).

The poll you mention should simply lay it straight.

'Do you want it less likely that a driver can die if it means we use the halo yes/no'.

[Manoah2u]

Wehrlein in Monaco? Definately. How about Wehrlein during the race of champions. A halo there (cage) would have prevented his neck damage. I recently have started wondering whether that crash and the physical damage inflicted on him has not resulted in a (significant) loss of race craft. I don't know if these things can be measured, or have been measured, but it would provide an interesting insight.

Either way,

Wehrlein race of champions (non-formula race) - halo would have resulted in no injury whatsoever. 100%.

Wes Allen Formula Ford collision wheel only inches from helmet - Halo would have made it 100% safe.

Vettel SPA 2006 Renault World Series, his loose wheel hits other driver only inches from his head. Halo would have made it 100% safe.

Wehrlein Monaco - dangerous, Halo would have made it 100% safe.
Alonso & Grosjean SPA - close call, Halo would have made it 100% safe.
Schumacher & Liuzzi - very very close call. Halo would have made it 100% safe.
Alonso & Raikkonen Austria - very close call with rear end head impact. Halo would have made it 100% safe.

Button - near drain cover head collision. Halo would have significantly increased injury protection in the case of cockpit contact.

Massa debris impact - actual heavy damage. Halo would have significantly increased his chances.

Jules Bianchi loader truck impact - lethally wounded, death occurred. Halo might have increased survival chances

Maria de Villota truck ramp collision - lethally wounded, death occurred. Halo would 100% proteced her life.
she would have survived.
Justin Wilson nosecone impact - lethally wounded, death occurred. Halo would 100% proteced his life.
he would have survived.
Dan Wheldon fence cockpit impact - lethally wounded, death occured Halo would 100% proteced his life.
he would have survived.
Henry Surtees wheel helmet impact - lethally wounded, death occured Halo would 100% proteced his life.
he would have survived.

14 incidents from the top of my head in which the presence of a halo would have resulted in 12 guaranteed non injuries, and as such, of which 4 guaranteed would not have resulted in death, having 2 incidents where the chances of either a non-deadly outcome for one would have been fairly higher, and the other where chance of debris bouncing off and thus avoiding contact would also have been fairly higher.

4 deaths would not have occured with the halo present.
1 death might have not occured with the halo present.
1 neck injury would not have occured with the halo present in a non-formula open wheeler.
1 skull injury would possibly not have occured with the halo present.
7 close call incidents would have been completely safe from danger with the halo present.

all just from the top of my head.

i could dig deeper and be sure to find lots of more incidents where the halo would provide substancial safety improvement.

hell, i can name one famous death that would guaranteed not have happened if the halo was present back in the day, even if it's not at all reasonable to put that up for discussion - Senna. the Halo would have protected Senna from the car debris reaching the angle and space it went through to be able to hit his head as violently as it did (assuming that is actually what happened).

I'm confident wheel tethers and the head protection in the form of the headrests would already have been sufficient, combined with the halo would have 100% made sure Senna would have survived the impact. Let's be clear here, we're not talking about a 100% protection from any form of injury, as there are still a variety of injuries that could happen. But direct life threating injury or immediate death from impact by objects is nearly nihilized.

for this reason, there really should be no question about whether the Halo should be implemented or not.

physical appearance does play a extremely big factor as a result, and it's undeniable that it is a rather unwanted side effect. A side effect though, that in due time surely will be improved significantly. Headrests of 1996 for example looked horrible too, but have developed astonishingly and to be honest, i think pre-1996 cars now look actually a bit odd to me, and really it's a bit jaw dropping how unprotected those drivers were. Immediately in 96 (SPA, Jos Verstappen) the protection proved it's efficiency in protecting life.

Its a sacrifice to make which in all reality should be made wholeheartedly, if only out of respect for the lives lost because of the abscense of such device. We're talking about a variety of examples here.

It is without a doubt that the Halo will undergo a lot of development progresses, and i'm rather confident it'll turn into a shape where it will be accompanied by a closed windscreen of a material that will add into it's structural integrity and ability to both deflect and absorb a variety of objects in order to protect a driver's otherwise (semi) exposed head.

[NathanOlder]

I agree with a lot of that BUT 1 thing I'm not sure on is Dan wheldon. The catch fencing is so strong to protect the fans. I still feel the halo wouldn't have stood a chance.

Also people need to stop thinking the halo is some kind of force field. If for example Grosjeans car had hit Alonso's head, it probably would have killed him, if you added the halo to that, the halo if as strong as its meant to be, would have cut through the floor and side pod of the lotus, so plenty of broken sharp carbon fibre is now heading to alonso's head.

Yes the halo would have saved Surtess and Wilson, but im not sure on Maria, Jules & Dan.

You guys really love this halo, I dont want to ever catch you guys out cycling without one