Why is nobody discussing Bottas' Halo problems?

[jjn9128]

The more I look at it and the more I see the more I think it's a knee jerk over reaction that won't help and may hurt.

Comments like this actually make me angry. It's not constructive and it's factually inaccurate. So lets examine.

"...I think it's a knee jerk over reaction..."
Knee-jerk
adjective
(of a response) automatic and unthinking
Overreaction
noun
a more emotional or forcible response than is justified

Teams and drivers signed a letter the FIA in 2010 to ask for head/cockpit protection - that's 7 years ago. A research program was commenced around that time. A number of cockpit protection solutions were trialled and tested, computationally and by firing a tyre from a number of angles at 225km/hr at instrumented versions, with the halo found to be the best solution. Teams were told halo would be introduced in 2016, teams/drivers/press didn't like it on aesthetic grounds so the introduction was deferred to see if anyone could come up with a nicer looking solution. The Red Bull aero-screen and the shield were both trialled and both had issues which would take time to resolve. So the FIA elected to force through the halo for 2018. I don't see where the knee-jerk overreaction is here, in fact it's the exact opposite of those definitions.

"...that won't help and may hurt"
In an unprecedented move the FIA have actually presented their findings (admittedly it's not a scientific article and few of the actual figures are in the presentation, but let's face it if they did that the press would claim the FIA are trying to hoodwink them with numbers and scientific jargon), but we know it will definitely help in most situations, both object-to-car and car-to-car. The only weakness, to which they admit, is in small object-to-car. Which a) it is not designed for and b) helmet rules have been designed to further protect the drivers from small objects.

The only emotional and unthinking response is yours, and I see your comment as, "I don't like how it looks so I will try to pick holes and make unsubstantiated claims that it's actually dangerous".

[NathanOlder]

It was a knee jerk over reaction in 2010. We've been lucky to survive this long without the damn thing.

Open Wheels
Open Cockpit
Formula 1
Forever!

Just quadruple the thickness of the wheel tethers and no one gets killed by a wheel. As for poor justin wilson, i cant recall ever seeing a full nose cone of an f1 car coming off in 1 big piece. So i can't see that happening in F1. Massa's accident sill still happen, as will Jules. Dan Whedon, Halo probably does nothing, Henry Surtees thicker wheel tethers.

The Halo at most should be driver preference

Of the driver injuries , missing races and tragedies in the last decade,

Kubica , Massa, Perez, Alonso, Bianchi
The Halo brings nothing to help these.

[strad]

I think that since Senna people have become obsessed with making F1 , and all racing 100% safe.

[strad]

In the end what is being pushed for is the outlawing of racing as too dangerous because as we all know, you can never make it 100% safe

[turbof1]

The more I look at it and the more I see the more I think it's a knee jerk over reaction that won't help and may hurt.

Comments like this actually make me angry. It's not constructive and it's factually inaccurate. So lets examine.

"...I think it's a knee jerk over reaction..."
Knee-jerk
adjective
(of a response) automatic and unthinking
Overreaction
noun
a more emotional or forcible response than is justified

Teams and drivers signed a letter the FIA in 2010 to ask for head/cockpit protection - that's 7 years ago. A research program was commenced around that time. A number of cockpit protection solutions were trialled and tested, computationally and by firing a tyre from a number of angles at 225km/hr at instrumented versions, with the halo found to be the best solution. Teams were told halo would be introduced in 2016, teams/drivers/press didn't like it on aesthetic grounds so the introduction was deferred to see if anyone could come up with a nicer looking solution. The Red Bull aero-screen and the shield were both trialled and both had issues which would take time to resolve. So the FIA elected to force through the halo for 2018. I don't see where the knee-jerk overreaction is here, in fact it's the exact opposite of those definitions.

"...that won't help and may hurt"
In an unprecedented move the FIA have actually presented their findings (admittedly it's not a scientific article and few of the actual figures are in the presentation, but let's face it if they did that the press would claim the FIA are trying to hoodwink them with numbers and scientific jargon), but we know it will definitely help in most situations, both object-to-car and car-to-car. The only weakness, to which they admit, is in small object-to-car. Which a) it is not designed for and b) helmet rules have been designed to further protect the drivers from small objects.

The only emotional and unthinking response is yours, and I see your comment as, "I don't like how it looks so I will try to pick holes and make unsubstantiated claims that it's actually dangerous".

I agree with this post. Mind I'm absolutely no fan of that horrendous solution, but it is no knee jerk solution. Some form of protection to avoid death like the Surtees' one had to be found.

I do have complaints that they tested with the only parameters being "can we make it fit" and "can we reach a satisfactory level of protection", instead of the additional "aesthetics" parameter. You don't have to compromise on safety. You might have to compromise on "making it fit", but in that case be a bit more brave and redesign the entire rollhoop/airbox/engine cover regulation boxes.

[jjn9128]

I do have complaints that they tested with the only parameters being "can we make it fit" and "can we reach a satisfactory level of protection", instead of the additional "aesthetics" parameter. You don't have to compromise on safety. You might have to compromise on "making it fit", but in that case be a bit more brave and redesign the entire rollhoop/airbox/engine cover regulation boxes.

I understand, but I don't know that aesthetics can ever be a consideration in F1/motorsport. Just look at this years cars. I would argue that they're less attractive than previous years, even though the intent of the rules was to make the cars more attractive - I think they're slightly better than the 2011-16 cars (mainly because the lower/wider rear wing looks a little less awkward) but not better than 2000-05, and certainly not better than 1989-94 (biased because that's the era I started watching F1).

The only beauty in an F1 car (again for me) is in it's purposefulness. The fact that everything is engineered to make the car faster, within a set of rules which are designed to make the cars slower/safer. I'm not sure if there's a better way (thought I've not given it much thought) to improve the cockpit protection, while maintaining an open-cockpit, and allowing driver egress both self propelled and assisted by safety crews.

[adrianjordan]

I don't like the Halo and I'm not convinced it will make much difference either way, though I can see how it adds protection in certain potential incidents.

However the teams and drivers have all accepted it, so they must see a need.

That said, I really hope they keep working on the aero-screen/shield solutions as I think they are aesthetically more pleasing and also that, if they can get them right, they will provide more protection for the drivers.

[djos]

The thing is: the Halo would do nothing to help Massa. The gap is several times bigger than the spring that hit him.

I agree, if anything I think it could have been deflected by the under-side of the halo into his chest potentially causing even more serious injuries.

[djos]

I agree with this post. Mind I'm absolutely no fan of that horrendous solution, but it is no knee jerk solution. Some form of protection to avoid death like the Surtees' one had to be found.

After having watched the Surtees' incident over and over again, I dont believe the Halo would have saved him - if you really analyse the videos carefully, you'll see that the wheel is bouncing from his left and literally lands directly on his head - the Halo will not do a damn thing to protect a driver in this scenario:

[turbof1]

I agree with this post. Mind I'm absolutely no fan of that horrendous solution, but it is no knee jerk solution. Some form of protection to avoid death like the Surtees' one had to be found.

After having watched the Surtees' incident over and over again, I dont believe the Halo would have saved him - if you really analyse the videos carefully, you'll see that the wheel is bouncing from his left and literally lands directly on his head - the Halo will not do a damn thing to protect a driver in this scenario:

http://e0.365dm.com/16/07/16-9/20/the-h ... 742758.jpg

http://fabwags.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... crash.jpeg

It sounds very paradoxal, for me to compare a solution to a death where indeed the Halo would probably not have helped.

However, with the halo as it is now the probability of a tire hitting a driver is vastly lowered. Surtees' death would not have been prevented by it, but the risk is now minimized to the tyre hitting the driver from that exact same spot and pretty much nowhere else.

[djos]

It sounds very paradoxal, for me to compare a solution to a death where indeed the Halo would probably not have helped.

However, with the halo as it is now the probability of a tire hitting a driver is vastly lowered. Surtees' death would not have been prevented by it, but the risk is now minimized to the tyre hitting the driver from that exact same spot and pretty much nowhere else.

I only bring it up because the FIA really went into overdrive with the halo after his death - even John Surtees made claims it would have saved him.

Justin Wilson is the only driver who would have been likely saved by the Halo - imo his death is more attributable to the design of the Indy cars at the time.

I dont have an issue with bringing in more advanced safety systems, however I think the Halo is a poor solution to the problem of making F1 safer - imo I think the AeroScreen or an equiv was a better solution. The AC would have prevented Massa's injury and Wilson's Death. Surtees however would have unfortunately needed to be in a closed cockpit to survive his accident - it was just a freak accident that was unsurvivable in an open cockpit car.

[djos]

PS. I'd be fully in favour of F1 going down the fighter canopy route:

[Webber2011]

PS. I'd be fully in favour of F1 going down the fighter canopy route:

https://www.motorsportweek.com/admin/ck ... -%2004.jpg

WOW

I love that design !

The "Halo" is a rubbish solution in my opinion.

[Tim.Wright]

I agree with this post. Mind I'm absolutely no fan of that horrendous solution, but it is no knee jerk solution. Some form of protection to avoid death like the Surtees' one had to be found.

After having watched the Surtees' incident over and over again, I dont believe the Halo would have saved him - if you really analyse the videos carefully, you'll see that the wheel is bouncing from his left and literally lands directly on his head - the Halo will not do a damn thing to protect a driver in this scenario:

http://e0.365dm.com/16/07/16-9/20/the-h ... 742758.jpg

http://fabwags.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... crash.jpeg

A lot of people are of this opinion but in my opinion it's not correct.

People see the wheel bouncing up and down in an 'earth fixed' reference frame.

If you calculate the velocity of that wheel relative to the vehicle you see it hits with a very shallow angle.

If you assume a 1m drop the vertical velocity will be 16 km/h at the point of impact. The car was likely going at around 180 km/h at that point so that equates to a 5deg angle of attack. If there was a halo, there's no way the wheel could have hit him coming at an angle of only 5 deg.

[Jolle]

I agree with this post. Mind I'm absolutely no fan of that horrendous solution, but it is no knee jerk solution. Some form of protection to avoid death like the Surtees' one had to be found.

After having watched the Surtees' incident over and over again, I dont believe the Halo would have saved him - if you really analyse the videos carefully, you'll see that the wheel is bouncing from his left and literally lands directly on his head - the Halo will not do a damn thing to protect a driver in this scenario:

http://e0.365dm.com/16/07/16-9/20/the-h ... 742758.jpg

http://fabwags.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... crash.jpeg

There are now around four different topics trying to come up with reasons why the halo is not an effective safety measure.

This must be the worst. concluding from a single frame that Surtees still would be hit by that tire. He was traveling fast, the tire would have easily hit the front of the halo and deflected off him. He would even finish the race with a few stories to tell!

This is getting more then ridiculous and the idea's spit out here are becoming more bullshit by the day.

There is just one downside to the Halo, it's not the worlds best looker, that's it. It's well studied and documented that it would have saved at least a few drivers the last few years (NOT jules, but nobody official ever claimed that!) and the risk added is extremely minimal. The studies also concluded that F1 got lucky more then once the last decade.