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

[bella]

slightly biased there, mike, i don’t think the teams wanted the halo either. but they were wrong to dismiss the windscreen so quickly for certain.

something just smells fishy about the way the halo was implemented.

[S griffin]

Of course it is, even Ross Brawn's technical group were for the shield. But it seemed the FIA pandered to Ferrari, which is not on when you consider this is a safety device we are speaking about

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bella

slightly biased there, mike, i don’t think the teams wanted the halo either. but they were wrong to dismiss the windscreen so quickly for certain.

something just smells fishy about the way the halo was implemented.

Not biased, Bella; cynical, maybe, but not biased because I hate them both.

My personal view is that now that the drivers are sat so low within the bodywork that they might as well utilise a full canopy, and just have a large icon affixed to the bodywork to denote the driver's helmet.

This is all about safety, after all.

[Akrapovic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzNiKnYPO2Q

You can see the positioning of the Visor cam here. If anything, YouTube makes the onboard look worse because of the higher camera. It'll actually be even better for the drivers.

We still haven't seen a visor cam of the Halo. Or talked about seeing flags, start lights and that sort of thing. But you don't need to test concepts thoroughly when it has absolutely nothing to do with the best product or safety, and it's purely political agenda.

[Adam43]

For what political gain? What’s the motive that the FIA has to risk the lives of the drivers as accused? Are they on a kick back from the halo manufacturers? Did a windscreen manufacturer’s daughter once shun Jean Todt?

I am obviously issuing this, but what are we actually accusing the FIA of?

[bella]

Originally Posted by Adam43

For what political gain? What’s the motive that the FIA has to risk the lives of the drivers as accused? Are they on a kick back from the halo manufacturers? Did a windscreen manufacturer’s daughter once shun Jean Todt?

I am obviously issuing this, but what are we actually accusing the FIA of?

the one halo manufacturer thats been publicly shouted about is dutch and indirectly owned by the chinese state.

i don’t know, there’s just something uncomfortable about how they’ve gone across the board with implementing the halo, whereas indycar has taken a bit more time about it and come up with what appears to be a better solution. considering they’ve had the most recent fatality where the canopy would have been a benefit i think that says a lot.

i’m really not into conspiracy theories but this doesnt feel great.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

For what political gain? What’s the motive that the FIA has to risk the lives of the drivers as accused? Are they on a kick back from the halo manufacturers? Did a windscreen manufacturer’s daughter once shun Jean Todt?

I am obviously issuing this, but what are we actually accusing the FIA of?

Todt wants his prizes for safety. He's already gotten in with the UN on that one and a few have theorised he's going for a Nobel Prize. You don't get a nobel prize by taking something that somebody else made and sticking it on your cars, even if it's the best solution. You can't say "Hey look what we made!" when everyone else already has it. At worst, Todt wants his prize. At best, it's ego stroking to be different for the sake of being different.

The FIA has never been interested in finding the best solution as they've given absolutely minimum development time to anything but the halo. We've come up with ridiculous reasons for the windscreen not being used, despite these issues having already been solved.

So the possible reasons for this outcome are, incompetence in the testing procedures, or a targeted solution regardless of the quality of it, which they had to work towards. It doesn't take much investigation work to see that they targeted the halo. Something isn't right with how opinions of those involved changed, evidence for the different solutions is either publicised or witheld to fit an agenda, and how other series have gone about the issues.

Remember you can't claim this is risking drivers lives, because it is technically safer. It just isn't the best solution available. It's just the best solution for a "hey look at us!" moment. Formula E is doing, quite literally, the exact same thing - and Formula E loves attention seeking nonsense.

Like Bella, I'm not a conspiracy theory guy (apart from Titanic Landing on the Moon. That one was a sound stage on Mars), but it's pretty clear what they're up to.

[Adam43]

I appreciate you two trying to fill int he gaps for me. I know you don’t just jump on the negativity bandwagon.

I’m not quite convinced. It isn’t quite ready for other series yet. If F1 adapt a screen after proven and replace the halo then they’ve probably done it for the right intentions. the main problem is they might not rush yet.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I know you don’t just jump on the negativity bandwagon.

I can't speak for bella, but you clearly don't know me very well.

[Adam43]

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Remember you can't claim this is risking drivers lives, because it is technically safer. It just isn't the best solution available. It's just the best solution for a "hey look at us!" moment. Formula E is doing, quite literally, the exact same thing - and Formula E loves attention seeking nonsense.

the cynic in me thinks the relatively quick adoption and proliferation of the HALO has more to do with shielding teams from liability concerns.

which is not a bad thing per say plus it has the knock on effect of a move towards safety. teams also need protection which means this might be the best solution for right now.

certainly not the best looking solution but perhaps an effective solution to a bigger threat...a litigious society.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

The FIA has never been interested in finding the best solution as they've given absolutely minimum development time to anything but the halo. We've come up with ridiculous reasons for the windscreen not being used, despite these issues having already been solved.

So the possible reasons for this outcome are, incompetence in the testing procedures, or a targeted solution regardless of the quality of it, which they had to work towards. It doesn't take much investigation work to see that they targeted the halo. Something isn't right with how opinions of those involved changed, evidence for the different solutions is either publicised or witheld to fit an agenda, and how other series have gone about the issues.

they did show us a lot of video footage of firing stuff at the various options, but i don't recall any other type of video?

that's where indycar have been clever. issue some visorcam footage, so people can see for themselves that it's a much better view for the driver than the halo. then you have a positive context for the constructive criticism regarding airflow and that kind of thing. all we got from f1 was one driver getting out and throwing a wobbly about it.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Remember you can't claim this is risking drivers lives, because it is technically safer. It just isn't the best solution available. It's just the best solution for a "hey look at us!" moment. Formula E is doing, quite literally, the exact same thing - and Formula E loves attention seeking nonsense.

i figured there was either some sort of rule a la when they decided it was time to raise the head rests, or there was some strong-arming going on. it'll be interesting to see what the odd remaining non-fia series such as formula renault 2.0 do.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the cynic in me thinks the relatively quick adoption and proliferation of the HALO has more to do with shielding teams from liability concerns.

this is a good point, although i'd kind of expect indy to go that way rather than the fia. the fia are very much europe-minded, where litigation is definitely not a thing (the bianchi case was a bit different). whereas i could easily see indycar having an issue on their hands if something terrible happened whilst they were still deciding what to do.

[Mike Harte]

Re the point about possible litigation, unless I have missed something, the Bianchi case is still to come to court. Not defending the FIA, but I am sure that that is something that they are bearing in mind, and which might account for their knee-jerk decisions.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Vettel only did the one lap with the 'Shield' during FP1 at Silverstone 2017. Not three laps.

According to this, Vettel did three laps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1...e-silverstone/

There's a bit of onboard footage with Vettel and the Shield.

https://youtu.be/bDWAARpCOQA.

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

According to this, Vettel did three laps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/formula-1...e-silverstone/

Vettel went out of the pits (first car out for FP1 followed by Raikkonen), went around the circuit at a moderate speed (installation lap), and came back into the pits to remove the shield, then continued with FP1. So technically not even one full lap. That's actually what happened. Witnessed by myself.

Official F1's YouTube channel has a summery of the 2017 British GP FP1 below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTrk2kOCkhA

Report below is from SkySport who was actually at the circuit during the test.
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/241...-new-f1-shield

Not sure where the telegraph.co.uk managed to find an extra 2 laps from really??

[F1Guy]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the cynic in me thinks the relatively quick adoption and proliferation of the HALO has more to do with shielding teams from liability concerns.

Spot on Chilli. The Halo has nothing to do with driver protection. It's got more to do with potential litigation, and the FiA are protecting themselves.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Vettel went out of the pits (first car out for FP1 followed by Raikkonen), went around the circuit at a moderate speed (installation lap), and came back into the pits to remove the shield, then continued with FP1. So technically not even one full lap. That's actually what happened. Witnessed by myself.

Official F1's YouTube channel has a summery of the 2017 British GP FP1 below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTrk2kOCkhA

Report below is from SkySport who was actually at the circuit during the test.
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/241...-new-f1-shield

Not sure where the telegraph.co.uk managed to find an extra 2 laps from really??

Technically then, not even one lap. That's pathetic.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by F1Guy

Spot on Chilli. The Halo has nothing to do with driver protection. It's got more to do with potential litigation, and the FiA are protecting themselves.

I am still struggling with this.

The potential litigation would be about protecting the driver? So why couldn’t they use the screen? Then they’ve covered themselves there. So why chose the halo instead?

[bjohnsonsmith]

What is this potential litigation? If there is any potential litigation, it would surely arise from a device like the Halo or Shield having been found to be defective or inadequate, in the event of an accident.

[RWill2073]

Hate to inform you guys, but it is the Year of The Dog. That means a halo is going to be hit by a flying tire, broken off the car (but saving that driver's life), only to fly back into a following car, past the halo and strike that driver dead. There's no way around it now.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bella

they did show us a lot of video footage of firing stuff at the various options, but i don't recall any other type of video?

that's where indycar have been clever. issue some visorcam footage, so people can see for themselves that it's a much better view for the driver than the halo. then you have a positive context for the constructive criticism regarding airflow and that kind of thing. all we got from f1 was one driver getting out and throwing a wobbly about it.

100% agree. When you actually look at what has been put out there, you realise what has happened and how they did it.

Before all the testing, they showed us how good the halo was at deflecting debris. Not much attention was given to any other solutions tests.

When we moved to field testing, we know that a visor cam video was shot because there's a still image of it. But where's the video? Why has that not been released? We have seen plenty of onboards, but we've deliberately not been shown what it looks like from the drivers point of view. Why?

Move to the windscreen and we get told it doesn't work based off of a single concept in a single lap run, AFTER all the drivers magically changed their minds to support the halo overnight. And the video of that is positioned in a such a way that the camera is looking through a more curved part of the glass, which exaggerates the effect. Yet...still no visor cam. Why?

Meanwhile, IndyCar make a working prototype, test it, and give us the camera angle we actually need. And their prototype clearly works. Wasn't that hard, was it? So why is F1 avoiding all of this? Is it because they're building the problem around the solution they want?

[Ospi]

Not to mention so many juniir formulas now incorporating the halo which means they'll be stuck with it for the duration of the homologation. Would look silly for f1 to move onto a better solution such as the Indy one leaving their feeders with the halo.

It's all just very knee jerk.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Sodemo]

Knee-jerk is what F1 does best.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Knee-jerk is what F1 does best.

Knee being an optional word in that sentence.

[bjohnsonsmith]

IndyCar director of engineering and safety Jeff Horton says, the initial test of the aeroscreen "exceeded expectations".

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/134326