[Tech Issue] Closed cockpits- Closer to reality then we might think?

[chillibowl]

appropriately named the Halo then!

[Adam43]

[Go Harder.]

So was the shield ditched simply because Vettel "felt a little dizzy"?

Sent from my ZTE T84 using Tapatalk

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

appropriately named the Halo then!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Go Harder.

So was the shield ditched simply because Vettel "felt a little dizzy"?

Sent from my ZTE T84 using Tapatalk

I wonder if the shield had an adverse effect on the Ferrari's aero and that's why Vettel "felt a little dizzy"?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

It was a first attempt at a shield of that type, it needs much more development to get it ready, and for something that fundamental and aero influencing, to be incorporated into the 2018 cars it has to be given the green light now.

[ciscotex]

Well, I've been reading the responses to many stories on the halo decision and have never heard so many of the F1 faithful so up in arms. Apparently I'm not alone in my view. Mark Hughes has an interesting take on it at Motorsport.

What I have just realized is that other than the errant wheel after a pitstop (none of which have been hit), the wheel tethers have accomplished what the FIA is seeking to fix. Had they been affixed to the cars in either Henry Surtees' or Justin Wilson's races, both would still be with us and we would not be howling about a fundamental change in the nature of the sport.

I have serious doubts as to whether it would have stopped the spring that hit Massa.

The FIA stated in the strategy meeting that the implemetation was necessary to shield them from legal liability, the releases that all drivers sign notwithstanding.

This knee jerk reaction reflects the poor judgment of an entity whose poor judgment caused the death of Jules Bianchi. Bianchi didn't die because he didn't have a halo, he died because 1. the FIA was holding a race in a fricking hurricane, because contracts (money) would not allow the race to be started earlier before the hurricane hit, and 2. the FIA's own ridiculous yellow flag procedures that put a bulldozer at trackside before the field was under control. The Bianchi family will win their suit not because there was no halo on the car, but because the FIA was just grossly negligent in the performance of the duties they had taken upon themselves.

I find it hugely ironic (and tragic) that the body that regulates motorsport spends most of its efforts on road safety and its head is spending much of his time with the UN. Motorsport is inherently dangerous. That is the source of the adrenaline rush that all of us who've ever participated craved. We were aware of the risks and drove in the classes and cars that matched our level of risk taking/aversion.

Can you imagine what MotoGP would look like if run by the FIA?

Thanks for letting me vent.

Paul

[Sodemo]

Yep. In years gone by, a digger on the track meant an instant safety car. There have been a few other eyebrow raising incidents which were handled under waved yellows too, like when I think it was one of the Force Indias spun at Hockenhiem on the pit straight and the car was practically in the middle of the circuit, yet it was handled under yellows and marshalls had to go out on a fully live track. I still believe the FIA were hugely liable for Bianchis death.

[F1Guy]

I have started my 2018 F1 car collection already!

[Go Harder.]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

I have started my 2018 F1 car collection already!

Clearly an open cockpit fan

Sent from my ZTE T84 using Tapatalk

[Matt]

Originally Posted by ciscotex

Well, I've been reading the responses to many stories on the halo decision and have never heard so many of the F1 faithful so up in arms. Apparently I'm not alone in my view. Mark Hughes has an interesting take on it at Motorsport.

What I have just realized is that other than the errant wheel after a pitstop (none of which have been hit), the wheel tethers have accomplished what the FIA is seeking to fix. Had they been affixed to the cars in either Henry Surtees' or Justin Wilson's races, both would still be with us and we would not be howling about a fundamental change in the nature of the sport.

I have serious doubts as to whether it would have stopped the spring that hit Massa.

The FIA stated in the strategy meeting that the implemetation was necessary to shield them from legal liability, the releases that all drivers sign notwithstanding.

This knee jerk reaction reflects the poor judgment of an entity whose poor judgment caused the death of Jules Bianchi. Bianchi didn't die because he didn't have a halo, he died because 1. the FIA was holding a race in a fricking hurricane, because contracts (money) would not allow the race to be started earlier before the hurricane hit, and 2. the FIA's own ridiculous yellow flag procedures that put a bulldozer at trackside before the field was under control. The Bianchi family will win their suit not because there was no halo on the car, but because the FIA was just grossly negligent in the performance of the duties they had taken upon themselves.

I find it hugely ironic (and tragic) that the body that regulates motorsport spends most of its efforts on road safety and its head is spending much of his time with the UN. Motorsport is inherently dangerous. That is the source of the adrenaline rush that all of us who've ever participated craved. We were aware of the risks and drove in the classes and cars that matched our level of risk taking/aversion.

Can you imagine what MotoGP would look like if run by the FIA?

Thanks for letting me vent.

Paul

Wilson was hit in the head by a nosecone, not a wheel.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Lola

Booooo!!!!!!

Its supposed to be dangerous, if it wasn't, we would all be doing it.

With respect this is a silly response, car racing has built in danger but if you watch because its supposed to be dangerous, then you are watching for the wrong reasons..

[ciscotex]

Originally Posted by Matt

Wilson was hit in the head by a nosecone, not a wheel.

Thanks. Senility is a bi*ch.

[S griffin]

It needs a bit of danger, but not unnecessary danger that can easily be avoided. But the halo is quite frankly still got too many problems to overcome, so I'm amazed it will happen in 2018

[ciscotex]

Originally Posted by Matt

Wilson was hit in the head by a nosecone, not a wheel.

Matt, FWIW, I looked into this a little more. Apparently, at some point, teams were putting ballast in the nose and Wilson was hit by a ~30 lb nose that may or may not have had ~15 lbs of ballast in it. Since that accident, Indycar has added tethers to the nose on high speed ovals and banned any ballast in the nose.

I think Indycar makes a much better case for the need for head protection than F1 due to the proximity of the catch fences on oval and street courses that were the issue in Wheldon's and Franchitti's crashes and the guard rail that was nearly so in Dixon's at the 500 this year.

Also, amazingly, according to Pitpass, the FIA has issued a press release today justifying the halo cramdown. They must be feeling real heat.

The squirming, posturing, and backtracking may get interesting. Gonna need something to entertain us over the break.

But I still feel that if the halo is the best F1 can do, I'm done. The cars have gotten uglier nearly every year since 1968 (when Chapman put both wings and sponsor paint jobs on the cars for the first time). Ironically, the ground effects cars of the late 70s and early 80s were a brief exception. Of course, the FIA has pursued the extermination of ground effects ever since, preferring these ridiculously complex (and expensive) wings, despite the fact that ground effects would yield less air disturbance for the following car (thus a greater potential for on course passing) and a potentially prettier car. So, from my perspective the FIA (with some help from Bernie and the Strategery Group) has just about ruined F1 for me.

Paul

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by ciscotex

Also, amazingly, according to Pitpass, the FIA has issued a press release today justifying the halo cramdown. They must be feeling real heat.

FiA statement in full.

http://www.fia.com/news/f1-why-halo-best-solution

[insane014]

Just close the damn cockpit and integrate it's aero in future design rulebook.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

FiA statement in full.

http://www.fia.com/news/f1-why-halo-best-solution

It says in that report: "After static testing, the Shield system was given a short track test at the 2017 British Grand Prix, with the device fitted to the Ferrari of Sebastian Vettel. Feedback from this test concerned a number of limitations around such a system."

A short track test is barely adequate and it shouldn't have been conducted by just one driver and one team. They say in the second paragraph: "Safety in motorsport is a paramount concern for the FIA." If that's the case, then the Shield should have been tested thoroughly. It will be interesting to see what IndyCar do.

[Armco Bender]

Safety in motorsport is a paramount concern for the FIA and while great strides have been made in many areas of motor sport, head protection in single-seater competition has been an area of concern for many years.

Are all classes of open wheelers getting halo's or is F1 more paramount than the other classes?.

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

A short track test is barely adequate and it shouldn't have been conducted by just one driver and one team.

Vettel did just a single installation lap with the shield during FP1. That was it.

Vettel: "We had a run planned with it, but I didn't like it -- especially looking forwards because of the curvature. It had quite a lot of distortion and I got a bit dizzy and there was a lot of downwash coming off the back of my helmet and pushing my head forward, so we decided to take it off."


Vettel on Halo:'In principle I agree it doesn't look very nice, it's not the picture that you're used to from Formula 1 for a long time, but equally if it helps increase safety and save lives, there would be at least two drivers that I remember who would still be around, Henry Surtees and Justin Wilson, if we had this type of system.

"I think it can be as ugly as possible, and nothing justifies not having these two guys around anymore."



Hamilton on Halo: "Please no! This is the worst looking mod in Formula 1 history.

"I appreciate the quest for safety but this is Formula 1, and the way it is now is perfectly fine."

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Vettel did just a single installation lap with the shield during FP1. That was it.

Vettel: "We had a run planned with it, but I didn't like it -- especially looking forwards because of the curvature. It had quite a lot of distortion and I got a bit dizzy and there was a lot of downwash coming off the back of my helmet and pushing my head forward, so we decided to take it off."


Vettel on Halo:'In principle I agree it doesn't look very nice, it's not the picture that you're used to from Formula 1 for a long time, but equally if it helps increase safety and save lives, there would be at least two drivers that I remember who would still be around, Henry Surtees and Justin Wilson, if we had this type of system.

"I think it can be as ugly as possible, and nothing justifies not having these two guys around anymore."



Hamilton on Halo: "Please no! This is the worst looking mod in Formula 1 history.

"I appreciate the quest for safety but this is Formula 1, and the way it is now is perfectly fine."

Just one lap? That's ridiculous. This is meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport. Testing is in F1's DNA.

[S griffin]

Are they really in that much of a hurry they can only test it once? They need to keep testing it to make sure, surely

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It says in that report: "After static testing, the Shield system was given a short track test at the 2017 British Grand Prix, with the device fitted to the Ferrari of Sebastian Vettel. Feedback from this test concerned a number of limitations around such a system."

A short track test is barely adequate and it shouldn't have been conducted by just one driver and one team. They say in the second paragraph: "Safety in motorsport is a paramount concern for the FIA." If that's the case, then the Shield should have been tested thoroughly. It will be interesting to see what IndyCar do.

They only did a single lap because they're pushing an agenda. Someone, somewhere, wants the Halo to happen and it will. So any testing for any other solution will be done poorly, so they can justify the Halo.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Are they really in that much of a hurry they can only test it once? They need to keep testing it to make sure, surely

For next season probably yes.

The aero around the cockpit including helmet buffeting, together with airflow into the airbox will need revised. Add to that fully integrating it onto the safety cell and designing the bodywork and access panels will take time, especially if access to the electric and neutral buttons need moved too.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

They only did a single lap because they're pushing an agenda. Someone, somewhere, wants the Halo to happen and it will. So any testing for any other solution will be done poorly, so they can justify the Halo.

One lap doesn't justify that. There could be an agenda. When Ferrari are involved there is that possibility. Vettel said there was a lot of downwash coming off the back of his helmet. Therefore, I wonder how else the Shield was affecting the car's aerodynamics, or have Ferrari managed to get some aerodynamic tweak out of the Halo?