F1technical.net

And my point is that cars still can catch fire after a crash , but I'm being told, the last car to crash and burn was in 1989 !

I know fires are less common in F1 these days,

I'm saying more cars have crashed and caught fire than wheels hitting drivers on the head, this is surely a fact.

The whole point of my argument is, people seem overly fussed about driver safety, and that drivers need to have more protection from something that hasn't really been seen in F1. A loose wheel hitting a driver has never happened from what I know. So adding the Halo to combat this (all i seem to see is videos f the Halo being hit by a wheel, I've not seen the Halo being hit by a Car at 100+mph) adds problems of drivers getting out of the car slower, and making it slower for medics to get a driver out of the car, and when the car could be upside down in the gravel god knows what will happen.

So why are the people overly fussed about loose wheels, not fussed about fires ? when fires happen more often ? It doesnt add up.

Does the British F3 even have the Halo this year ? A formula where the only time I can think a loose wheel killed someone.

Somebody explain why we are even discussing a wheel assembly hitting a driver?
What happened to those genius engineers that came up with tethers that were unbreakable and we'd never see a wheel come loose again?
Didn't they double them when they didn't work? And yet here we are.

strad wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2018, 21:28

Somebody explain why we are even discussing a wheel assembly hitting a driver?
What happened to those genius engineers that came up with tethers that were unbreakable and we'd never see a wheel come loose again?
Didn't they double them when they didn't work? And yet here we are.

They can still fail. Besides, even if it's just the rubber part flying around and not the whole assembly, it certainly isn't pleasant to be hit on the head by that (which almost happened to Max Chilton in 2014 by the way).

Most of the time the tethers do work. Halo, as a roll bar, is intended to protect against more than just loose wheel impacts. Hence the four-London-buses test. Another car sliding up over the chassis, for example.

But all this is known. I'm repeating what's been said a hundred times before. People are just being quarrelsome at this point.

At least some, maybe a plurality, of drivers are supportive or neutral about it. The teams, the business, want it. This is about employee safety, avoiding litigation and all the expenses associated with tragedies. It's why Jean Todt said he didn't care what spectators thought about it.

Wasn't it 1 London bus ?

Also its 3 wheel tethers per wheel this year.

Most of the time the tethers do work

.
That's the point. Most of the time
Nothing they come up with comes with a guarantee.
However people on here think they and anything the can come up with will be infallible.
Some of those same people that came up with the infallible tethers are the same ones that think the HALO will be infallible and or that they will never see another driver die.
I refer you back to Rick Mears quote .

As the 'safety aspects' of the Halo have been done to death and no one can agree because there isn't any real data, I'd like to take this conversation back to aesthetics.
So far every car that has been launched has one ghastly appendage, the Halo. It's not even a question of it being 'something that i'll get used to', its proportions are 100 different kinds of wrong. It's a million miles removed from the Mercedes render (which almost looked like a halo) and I saw a Ferrari version that was so much easier on the eye. Who designed this monstrosity anyway?

All I can think of is: If Vettel wasn't a little bitch, we could've saved our eyes from the halo.

DiogoBrand wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2018, 01:17

All I can think of is: If Vettel wasn't a little bitch, we could've saved our eyes from the halo.

Unfortunately Vettel will always be...... well..... Vettel.

I thought what was most intriguing in what Scott said was in regards to the "quietness" he experienced -- he heard things he never hears. I thought wow that would really open a perception door for drivers (hearing) as they would be able to better hear the tires (especially in the rain), power unit noises, brakes, etc. This would, imo, really help a lot of drivers actually drive the car more skillfully and sensitively, it would improve test development pace, quicken weekend adjustments to the car, etc, All simply because the driver would be able to actually hear what is going on in greater depth. Maybe the camera for the audience would be more sensitive? Dunno.

I think aside from other arguments, this offers a positive for the fighter jet style option the halo does not, and cannot offer in its current design. Imo, this quality of the jet style gives valid reason to at least re-explore the Red Bull option which likely(?) would offer similar acoustics while retaining the halo.

Here's what Scott said:

http://youtu.be/MzNiKnYPO2Q

J.A.W. wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2018, 06:18

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2018, 12:27

...Optics are another issue. The aircraft screen doesn't give perfect optical performance but it doesn't need to. The driver in the car is seeing very fast moving scenery that crosses his vision on both sides and across the front. He needs good vision to place the car. The pilot, although able to travel many times faster than the car, isn't exposed to the same movement of objects in his field of view. Minor distortion, whilst undesirable, can be accepted because the pilot doesn't need to place his plane to the inch in the way the driver does. Even landing on an aircraft carrier is accurate only within several feet and, once close to the fantail, there is no need to see perfect detail anyway as you can't do anything about it.

Clever shaping of the screen could deal with some of the distortion but only so long as the eyes remain in the same place. Add in head movement and vibration and it becomes very difficult.

No..

The clear, distortion-free pilot view in a combat aircraft is still very important, since not only is accurate visual
perception - in all 4 dimensions - a must, but nothwithstanding radar intercept guidance, rules of engagement require
a visual confirmation in virtually all circumstances, prior to use of weapons..

None of your apparent objections stand as preventing the adoption of a properly functional aero-screen in Indy Car, or F1..

For the benefit of the ignorant member who downvoted this post - on the basis of not comprehending "4 dimensions",
well, the 4th dimension is space-time.. that is, the perception of time - as applied to movement through space.. got that?