planetf1.com

What do you think should be used to further protect drivers?

I think a full bubble canopy... But as that is not an option the FIA are willing to think about.

Aeroscreen

*interesting fact: my phone keeps correcting aeroscreen to Aerosmith

Where is the none of the above option?

Quark wrote:Where is the none of the above option?

Not a real option... In the poll or real life

Surely it should be whichever one is safest, seeming that is all that should matter here isn't it?

Halo.

Or aeroscreen.

Whichever is best developed and least of a hindrance while racing.

I would like to see a Red Bull designed Halo.
The aeroscreen does a better job at protecting the drivers.

Aeroscreen doesnt look as bad as halo. I go for that providing its equally safe

There should be a no option.

The fia will always skew data too support their arguments.

But give any true formula 1 fan a option of halo. Aeroscreen or nothing. We all know know the conclusions will be.

Sure we will get a few people who will say halo or Aeroscreen. But I Guarantee that 97% of people who will get polled will say they don't want anything. Plus this will be echoed by Damon hill. Johnny Harbert. Martin brundle. David Coulthard Lewis Hamilton to name a few.

Let's not cloud the judgement. The halo and aeroscreen has been a kneejerk reaction to the death of jules branchi.

Let's be real. Jukes bianchi died because of the sudden g force that he suffered. Not because of any blows to the head etc. Let's not kid ourselves here. If they wanted too add a canopy for safety. They should of done it after the death of Ayrton Senna.

wire2004 wrote:There should be a no option.

The fia will always skew data too support their arguments.

But give any true formula 1 fan a option of halo. Aeroscreen or nothing. We all know know the conclusions will be.

Sure we will get a few people who will say halo or Aeroscreen. But I Guarantee that 97% of people who will get polled will say they don't want anything. Plus this will be echoed by Damon hill. Johnny Harbert. Martin brundle. David Coulthard Lewis Hamilton to name a few.

Let's not cloud the judgement. The halo and aeroscreen has been a kneejerk reaction to the death of jules branchi.

Let's be real. Jukes bianchi died because of the sudden g force that he suffered. Not because of any blows to the head etc. Let's not kid ourselves here. If they wanted too add a canopy for safety. They should of done it after the death of Ayrton Senna.

If safety doesn't matter, no one will go for any of the options of course. But it does. And the question of when is not relevant. The decision is made now, it's gonna happen, now it's important the best option is taken. And maybe it wouldn't have saved Bianchi, but it would have saved Justin Wilson. Accidents like that can happen in F1 too (Massa). The important question isn't whether it would have saved lives in the past, but which is the best option to save lives in the future.

Aeroscreen for me. It looks better and I think it offers better protection for small objects.

Not voting without a 'none' option.

wire2004 wrote:There should be a no option.

The fia will always skew data too support their arguments.

But give any true formula 1 fan a option of halo. Aeroscreen or nothing. We all know know the conclusions will be.

Sure we will get a few people who will say halo or Aeroscreen. But I Guarantee that 97% of people who will get polled will say they don't want anything. Plus this will be echoed by Damon hill. Johnny Harbert. Martin brundle. David Coulthard Lewis Hamilton to name a few.

Let's not cloud the judgement. The halo and aeroscreen has been a kneejerk reaction to the death of jules branchi.

Let's be real. Jukes bianchi died because of the sudden g force that he suffered. Not because of any blows to the head etc. Let's not kid ourselves here. If they wanted too add a canopy for safety. They should of done it after the death of Ayrton Senna.

This argument makes me mad every time I hear it, it is so inaccurate that it is simply infuriating. It's only true in the fact that his head never came in contact with the machine. His helmet did. And helmets (generally) contain the drivers head. When the helmet hit the lift in relation to the rest of bianchi it stopped. Thus his head stopped shortly after. His brain continued moving momentarily before smashing into the front of his skull and causing massive trauma. So yes, rapid deceleration did the damage. Rapid deceleration caused for all intents and purposes when his head hit the rear of the tractor. To say otherwise is simply ridiculous.

wire2004 wrote:There should be a no option.

The fia will always skew data too support their arguments.

But give any true formula 1 fan a option of halo. Aeroscreen or nothing. We all know know the conclusions will be.

Sure we will get a few people who will say halo or Aeroscreen. But I Guarantee that 97% of people who will get polled will say they don't want anything. Plus this will be echoed by Damon hill. Johnny Harbert. Martin brundle. David Coulthard Lewis Hamilton to name a few.

Let's not cloud the judgement. The halo and aeroscreen has been a kneejerk reaction to the death of jules branchi.

Let's be real. Jukes bianchi died because of the sudden g force that he suffered. Not because of any blows to the head etc. Let's not kid ourselves here. If they wanted too add a canopy for safety. They should of done it after the death of Ayrton Senna.

No.

FIA has been researching additional head protection at least since 2009 when Massa was hit. In fact neither halo nor aeroscreen would have probably saved Bianchi.

Does anybody know, whichever of these alternatives is chosen, will all other "open cockpit" categories also have to incorporate it? eg, GP2, GP3. various FRenault, F3, FFord

Argentum wrote:Does anybody know, whichever of these alternatives is chosen, will all other "open cockpit" categories also have to incorporate it? eg, GP2, GP3. various FRenault, F3, FFord

Probably not in 2017, but expect all of them, including Indy to follow F1 at some point.

Aeroscreen. Thought it looked horrific in the first couple of pictures, but in action it looked ok and more effective than the Halo. With the teams styling and sculpting it as they no doubt will as they refine the idea, it will look good and most of all bring added safety.

As Martin Brundle put it during the race broadcast today, it's like choosing between the back end of a pig and the back end of cow.

When the likes of Brundle and Niki Lauda (as well as Bernie Ecclestone) are opposed to the whole idea I don't think we should take it as a given that either of these HAVE to implemented. I personally feel that these changes are not necessary as the risk of being struck by a large piece of debris is already minimal because of the design of the cars.

If we're really going down this route then I think they should be looking at proper enclosed cockpits, not these 'halfway' solutions that don't entirely address the problem they are trying to solve.

j man wrote:As Martin Brundle put it during the race broadcast today, it's like choosing between the back end of a pig and the back end of cow.

When the likes of Brundle and Niki Lauda (as well as Bernie Ecclestone) are opposed to the whole idea I don't think we should take it as a given that either of these HAVE to implemented. I personally feel that these changes are not necessary as the risk of being struck by a large piece of debris is already minimal because of the design of the cars.

If we're really going down this route then I think they should be looking at proper enclosed cockpits, not these 'halfway' solutions that don't entirely address the problem they are trying to solve.

Lol but serioulsy.
Aeroscreen doesnt look bad.



On the other hand, the Halo that Ferrari tested looked absolutely awful

As of now:
Halo: 2 votes
Aeroscreen: 19 votes

So... FIA will decide on the halo.

Warheart01 wrote:As of now:
Halo: 2 votes
Aeroscreen: 19 votes

So... FIA will decide on the halo.

But you're probably right

Aeroscreen looks cool from the sides. Hideous from the front. Fundamentally, I think it's a nicer concept than the halo. Average punter can relate to a windscreen device.

The Halo doesn't look cool to me. I also think to the people that aren't big F1 fans it looks weird having the support beam where it is. It makes sense when you really think about ti but to a glance it looks somewhat wrong.



On the whole, I'd like to know if they think these devices would have had a high chance of reducing the effect of the following (thought not limited to only these) accidents:
Massa in Hungary 09.
Henry Surtees fatal accident.
Jules Bianchi fatal accident.

To me, the procedural changes enforced in the wake of Bianchi's death with the safety car, virtual saftey car etc and also being more aware of having any recovery vehicles anywhere that could be a firing line would do more to prevent that happening again than a halo or screen would have done. I'm not convinced either of these devices would have helped much anyway but I'm not a doctor and I don't know enough about it all to give a strong opinion.

Red Bull device would have saved Massa no doubt, possibly Surtees as well although I don't want to fish out a video of that to watch again.

Halo would have saved Surtees I think but not sure about Massa possibly.

Don't think either would have helped Bianchi but then what he hit should never be within a circuit boundary whilst cars are still travelling fast.

None. The F1 standards in F1 are already perfectly fine.

Asphalt_World wrote:Red Bull device would have saved Massa no doubt, possibly Surtees as well although I don't want to fish out a video of that to watch again.

Halo would have saved Surtees I think but not sure about Massa possibly.

Don't think either would have helped Bianchi but then what he hit should never be within a circuit boundary whilst cars are still travelling fast.

Pretty sure the aeroscreen would've helped bianchi as it has bars on the sides

Maybe, just not sure what speed be was travelling at so I reserve judgement.

People not voting because there's no 'none' option aren't realising the point of this thread. The idea is that we are led to believe some kind of head protection will come in to the sport. Given the two main options, which do you prefer? If you don't want either, that's fine, but you can still choose a preference.

First off, I'm sick and tired of people dragging out the old "but it would not have saved Bianchi" argument. He wasn't killed by something hitting his head, it was the sudden stop. Even if he had been in a top fuel dragster cage he still would have suffered the same fate.


http://www.dragracingonline.com/raceres ... erhead.jpg

I voted for the Red Bull Aeroscreen because it is able to stop smaller objects because of the transparent screen. Aesthetically, I like the Ferrari Halo. But this is a work in progress, different organizations are attempting to find a solution that is inevitable, improved driver head protection. Who knows, maybe the end result is a full canopy. But whatever is written into the rules will be something more and something unlike the proposed Red Bull and Ferrari designs presently on the table.

Personally I'd like to see the Deltawing design slimmed down from two to one driver and implemented.

Asphalt_World wrote:People not voting because there's no 'none' option aren't realising the point of this thread. The idea is that we are led to believe some kind of head protection will come in to the sport. Given the two main options, which do you prefer? If you don't want either, that's fine, but you can still choose a preference.

OP asked what should be used in the future. Not which one I preferred. Hence why I didn't vote.

F1 is safe enough as it is. There's a line somewhere, we can't just make it safer and safer until we have robotic cars controlled by drivers in some room on simulators.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:First off, I'm sick and tired of people dragging out the old "but it would not have saved Bianchi" argument. He wasn't killed by something hitting his head, it was the sudden stop. Even if he had been in a top fuel dragster cage he still would have suffered the same fate.


http://www.dragracingonline.com/raceres ... erhead.jpg

I voted for the Red Bull Aeroscreen because it is able to stop smaller objects because of the transparent screen. Aesthetically, I like the Ferrari Halo. But this is a work in progress, different organizations are attempting to find a solution that is inevitable, improved driver head protection. Who knows, maybe the end result is a full canopy. But whatever is written into the rules will be something more and something unlike the proposed Red Bull and Ferrari designs presently on the table.

Personally I'd like to see the Deltawing design slimmed down from two to one driver and implemented.

It's not that current F1 cars are looking nice, we are just used to them. If the can solve visibility issues in rain and reduce reflections to minimum, I think aeroscreen is the way to go.

And to support you argument that head protection isn't reaction to Bianchi accident. This is video from 2011: https://vimeo.com/26098946 See FIA was already testing such a stuff.

We have had screen's in F1 before so it's not that alien a concept, but the FIA have no taste so it will be the thugly option

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:People not voting because there's no 'none' option aren't realising the point of this thread. The idea is that we are led to believe some kind of head protection will come in to the sport. Given the two main options, which do you prefer? If you don't want either, that's fine, but you can still choose a preference.

OP asked what should be used in the future. Not which one I preferred. Hence why I didn't vote.

F1 is safe enough as it is. There's a line somewhere, we can't just make it safer and safer until we have robotic cars controlled by drivers in some room on simulators.

You know that for a fact do you?

How many drivers died in F1 between say 1995 and 2010

Asphalt_World wrote:

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:People not voting because there's no 'none' option aren't realising the point of this thread. The idea is that we are led to believe some kind of head protection will come in to the sport. Given the two main options, which do you prefer? If you don't want either, that's fine, but you can still choose a preference.

OP asked what should be used in the future. Not which one I preferred. Hence why I didn't vote.

F1 is safe enough as it is. There's a line somewhere, we can't just make it safer and safer until we have robotic cars controlled by drivers in some room on simulators.

You know that for a fact do you?

How many drivers died in F1 between say 1995 and 2010

Sorry I should have specified that was in my opinion. That opinion is shared by the likes of Brundle, Bernie, Lauda and Hamilton to take a couple of people.

I don't know why you're asking how many drivers died between that period. Is that a rhetorical question or am I missing something?

Asphalt_World wrote:

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:People not voting because there's no 'none' option aren't realising the point of this thread. The idea is that we are led to believe some kind of head protection will come in to the sport. Given the two main options, which do you prefer? If you don't want either, that's fine, but you can still choose a preference.

OP asked what should be used in the future. Not which one I preferred. Hence why I didn't vote.

F1 is safe enough as it is. There's a line somewhere, we can't just make it safer and safer until we have robotic cars controlled by drivers in some room on simulators.

You know that for a fact do you?

How many drivers died in F1 between say 1995 and 2010

Why just measure safety in terms of fatalities? Crashes resulting in major injuries should also be considered.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:People not voting because there's no 'none' option aren't realising the point of this thread. The idea is that we are led to believe some kind of head protection will come in to the sport. Given the two main options, which do you prefer? If you don't want either, that's fine, but you can still choose a preference.

OP asked what should be used in the future. Not which one I preferred. Hence why I didn't vote.

F1 is safe enough as it is. There's a line somewhere, we can't just make it safer and safer until we have robotic cars controlled by drivers in some room on simulators.

You know that for a fact do you?

How many drivers died in F1 between say 1995 and 2010

Why just measure safety in terms of fatalities? Crashes resulting in major injuries should also be considered.

The point is that there were two fatalities in 1994 and following this there was a significant increase in safety in the sport. Prior to 1994 the cars seemed incredibly safe compared to 10 years previous. Sadly 94 was a dreadful season and this simply highlighted the need for ever increasing safety in F1. Compare say a 1997 car with three decent years of safety development after the 94 fatalities with the cars we have today and you would probably find most F1 drivers would not be that happy racing in those cars with their safety parameters.

Thus this leaves us with a tricky situation. Before anyone posts the following or something similar because I keep reading it on forums, I already know the safest form of F1 is to remove the drivers and make the cars remote control. In reality this would not exactly be the same kind of sport.

For me F1 is not good because of the risks on injury let alone death. I like motorsports to have great looking cars racing on good circuits, some decent overtaking that has be gained by way of better driving, not DRS, and the drivers should have to drive the cars on the edge.

If the cars were suddenly twice as safe (if you could quantify safety) then that would not remove anything from the sport. It's the racing that's important from a viewing point of view.

Therefore I see no reason why a year on year increase in safety should ever stop in motorsport. Why should it? How can anyone know a sport is safe enough?

Give me a very very safe car which the driver can't control brake balance and all sorts of other things during a race meaning they are more on edge each lap any day.

c. None of the above

mikeyg123 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:People not voting because there's no 'none' option aren't realising the point of this thread. The idea is that we are led to believe some kind of head protection will come in to the sport. Given the two main options, which do you prefer? If you don't want either, that's fine, but you can still choose a preference.

OP asked what should be used in the future. Not which one I preferred. Hence why I didn't vote.

F1 is safe enough as it is. There's a line somewhere, we can't just make it safer and safer until we have robotic cars controlled by drivers in some room on simulators.

You know that for a fact do you?

How many drivers died in F1 between say 1995 and 2010

Why just measure safety in terms of fatalities? Crashes resulting in major injuries should also be considered.

F1 isn't fundamentally different than Indy or now defunct F2. They have have seen deaths of drivers being hit by debris. There were also flying debris that hit Massa or flying tyres. F1 wasn't safe enough, there was a lot of talk about head protection in recent years. FIA has been testing various devices for years.

I would prefer a full canopy to either of the current proposed solutions, but of the two, I think the aeroscreen is more promising. Not necessarily that it looks better (it does from some angles, to be sure), but my guess is that it has a higher likelyhood of actually preventing debris from getting through as well as providing greater visibility.

They're both hideous, but at least the aeroscreen looks like it belongs on the car. I'd prefer a full canopy or nothing.

I used to really love inshore F1 powerboats and how much they looked like F1 cars of the early 80s - until they started adopting fully enclosed cockpits with fighter-jet canopies.

It really didn't spoil the look too much. I think the same would be true of F1 but I fear a lot of the damage of making the cars look either ugly or boring or both was already done in the late nineties and what we've had of this century so far.

I'm all for canopies on F1 cars but make them big so we can see what the drivers are doing inside there.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:First off, I'm sick and tired of people dragging out the old "but it would not have saved Bianchi" argument. He wasn't killed by something hitting his head, it was the sudden stop. Even if he had been in a top fuel dragster cage he still would have suffered the same fate.


http://www.dragracingonline.com/raceres ... erhead.jpg

I voted for the Red Bull Aeroscreen because it is able to stop smaller objects because of the transparent screen. Aesthetically, I like the Ferrari Halo. But this is a work in progress, different organizations are attempting to find a solution that is inevitable, improved driver head protection. Who knows, maybe the end result is a full canopy. But whatever is written into the rules will be something more and something unlike the proposed Red Bull and Ferrari designs presently on the table.

Personally I'd like to see the Deltawing design slimmed down from two to one driver and implemented.

I'm just going to quote myself here because this is the second time this inaccuracy has come up in this thread... On the exact same Page...

Blackhander wrote:

wire2004 wrote:

Let's be real. Jukes bianchi died because of the sudden g force that he suffered. Not because of any blows to the head etc. Let's not kid ourselves here. If they wanted too add a canopy for safety. They should of done it after the death of Ayrton Senna.

This argument makes me mad every time I hear it, it is so inaccurate that it is simply infuriating. It's only true in the fact that his head never came in contact with the machine. His helmet did. And helmets (generally) contain the drivers head. When the helmet hit the lift in relation to the rest of bianchi it stopped. Thus his head stopped shortly after. His brain continued moving momentarily before smashing into the front of his skull and causing massive trauma. So yes, rapid deceleration did the damage. Rapid deceleration caused for all intents and purposes when his head hit the rear of the tractor. To say otherwise is simply ridiculous.

The car suffered a 53G impact, which is quite survivable. His HELMET suffered a 254G impact.

Helmet suffered impact.

Helmet.

This imaginary story where Jules head never touched the tractor is wrong, and to keep spreading it like it is fact is simply insulting to his legacy