planetf1.com

Well this is the year when halos will take over F1 and then the other FIA single-seater classes. Personally I think they look awful, and the public are going to agree as the drivers will be even less visible to the fans.

However I can't argue from a safety point of view so I suppose we have to get used to them. I just wonder if they won't have unforseen side-effects, like restricting the driver's visibility, hindering him from getting out in an emergency; and they must surely effect mechanics' ability to adjust things in the cockpit from outside.

Colour-scheming them will help a bit, but over time maybe they can be included in a car's design as the roll bars already are, and become less ugly and artificial looking, otherwise I think the sport will suffer...

I worry in some ways it might become more dangerous. I'm sure the minds behind it are much more intelligent than mine, but I can't help but worry it might compromise the driver's safety even more so.

They're ugly as sin too, and this is coming from a guy who loves designs shaped by science. I even find the modern LMP1 cars to be gorgeous, and from what I've seen that's an unusual opinion. But this halo design, I hate to even look at it.

They have no place in F1 but I dare say I will have to get used to it.

They're not as bad for sport as tarmac run off at least.

mikeyg123 wrote:They have no place in F1 but I dare say I will have to get used to it.

They're not as bad for sport as tarmac run off at least.

They're not bad for the sport at all, they just look stupid.

I'll get used to them, but I'd rather not have to. I really can't imagine that they couldn't have come up with something more aesthetic that did the same job.

I suspect it won't be long at all before we are all used to them. Within a year or two we'll probably wonder what the fuss was about. I don't see it harming the sport in the slightest

I have said before, I wonder what things will be deflected into harms way that would not have without it. I always recal when I was young touching a ball that was going out, and it was kept in and lead to a win against us. I hope it will never happen in motorsport, but will there ever be a case of should have left it go.

Look on the bright side, it will keep large things out. We can put up with unsightly as long as its safe

I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

Zoue wrote:I suspect it won't be long at all before we are all used to them. Within a year or two we'll probably wonder what the fuss was about. I don't see it harming the sport in the slightest

People are still moaning about the noise and that was 4-5 years ago now.

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:I suspect it won't be long at all before we are all used to them. Within a year or two we'll probably wonder what the fuss was about. I don't see it harming the sport in the slightest

People are still moaning about the noise and that was 4-5 years ago now.

Hands up who got used to the step noses?

lamo wrote:

Zoue wrote:I suspect it won't be long at all before we are all used to them. Within a year or two we'll probably wonder what the fuss was about. I don't see it harming the sport in the slightest

People are still moaning about the noise and that was 4-5 years ago now.

not many are, though. It was the end of the world in the beginning but now most are resigned to it, even if they don't like it. A few die-hards might still be upset, but I shouldn't say it's harming the sport. I'm guessing something similar will happen with the halos, but to a much lesser extent. Once the designers start making theirs look less like an afterthought and more of an integrated design, I'm sure attitudes will change

MB-BOB wrote:I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

I think half the grid has also agreed to this. There are inherent risks that are accepted.


My 2c? May as well go closed cars. No gimmicks, either go fully closed or not. None of this cr*p half-*arsed solutions just to call it open top cars.

As someone who doesn’t really care about them one way or the other I’m looking forward to the car reveals this year even more than usual. Forums/social media will be hilarious

MB-BOB wrote:I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

Safety is a strange thing. Accidents can be absurdly unlikely - Senna died because his car's suspension member broke off and it went through his helmet. The crash itself wasn't terminal. He was just unlucky the suspension member happened to go straight at his head like an arrow when it broke under the impact. That's the 0.1%.

Maybe that shows you can't guard against every eventuality, but at least carbon fibre suspension members shatter, so it won't happen now.

I recall a few years back there was a 1st corner pile up at Spa, and as Alonso sat powerless in his car another car sailed over his head. Its bottom just cleared his helmet. It would have been amazingly unlucky if the flying car had passed just forward of his roll bar - which it did I think, as well as low enough to take his head off, but it was a near thing. That's 0.1% a halo would protect against. That's why, reluctantly, I'm for them.

tim3003 wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

Safety is a strange thing. Accidents can be absurdly unlikely - Senna died because his car's suspension member broke off and it went through his helmet. The crash itself wasn't terminal. He was just unlucky the suspension member happened to go straight at his head like an arrow when it broke under the impact. That's the 0.1%.

Maybe that shows you can't guard against every eventuality, but at least carbon fibre suspension members shatter, so it won't happen now.

I recall a few years back there was a 1st corner pile up at Spa, and as Alonso sat powerless in his car another car sailed over his head. Its bottom just cleared his helmet. It would have been amazingly unlucky if the flying car had passed just forward of his roll bar - which it did I think, as well as low enough to take his head off, but it was a near thing. That's 0.1% a halo would protect against. That's why, reluctantly, I'm for them.

This is exactly my point. Injuries derived from accidents are completely random and unpredictable. Halo may keep an errant wheel/tire out of the cockpit. But the same cannot be guaranteed with smaller objects.

Comparing situations, the spring that injured Massa in Hungary could strike the Halo and go in any of several directions. If striking the Halo squarely, it could be deflected to the side, its energy dissipated. But the chances are much greater that the spring will NOT hit squarely, deflecting up and over the cockpit (good) or deflecting downwards and into the cockpit (not good). It's completely random, even with the best of intentions.

I think back to all the drivers we lost ('50s through the mid '70s) for stupid reasons, and all the MAJOR safety improvements that were made since... and I see this Halo device as nothing more than a token nod to safety that will hold credibility only until the first instance in which it fails.

MB-BOB wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

Safety is a strange thing. Accidents can be absurdly unlikely - Senna died because his car's suspension member broke off and it went through his helmet. The crash itself wasn't terminal. He was just unlucky the suspension member happened to go straight at his head like an arrow when it broke under the impact. That's the 0.1%.

Maybe that shows you can't guard against every eventuality, but at least carbon fibre suspension members shatter, so it won't happen now.

I recall a few years back there was a 1st corner pile up at Spa, and as Alonso sat powerless in his car another car sailed over his head. Its bottom just cleared his helmet. It would have been amazingly unlucky if the flying car had passed just forward of his roll bar - which it did I think, as well as low enough to take his head off, but it was a near thing. That's 0.1% a halo would protect against. That's why, reluctantly, I'm for them.

This is exactly my point. Injuries derived from accidents are completely random and unpredictable. Halo may keep an errant wheel/tire out of the cockpit. But the same cannot be guaranteed with smaller objects.

Comparing situations, the spring that injured Massa in Hungary could strike the Halo and go in any of several directions. If striking the Halo squarely, it could be deflected to the side, its energy dissipated. But the chances are greater that the spring will NOT hit squarely, deflecting up and over the cockpit (good) or deflecting downwards and into the cockpit (not good). It's completely random, even with the best of intentions.

I think back to all the drivers we lost ('50s through the mid '70s), and all the MAJOR safety improvements that were made... and I see this Halo device as nothing more than a token nod to safety that will hold credibility only until the first instance in which it fails.

Didn't Henry Surtees accident happen by a tyre that was bouncing and fell on top of his head? That wouldn't be stopped by the Halo. Of course it will prevent some stuff, but what happens is unpredictable...

Siao7 wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

Safety is a strange thing. Accidents can be absurdly unlikely - Senna died because his car's suspension member broke off and it went through his helmet. The crash itself wasn't terminal. He was just unlucky the suspension member happened to go straight at his head like an arrow when it broke under the impact. That's the 0.1%.

Maybe that shows you can't guard against every eventuality, but at least carbon fibre suspension members shatter, so it won't happen now.

I recall a few years back there was a 1st corner pile up at Spa, and as Alonso sat powerless in his car another car sailed over his head. Its bottom just cleared his helmet. It would have been amazingly unlucky if the flying car had passed just forward of his roll bar - which it did I think, as well as low enough to take his head off, but it was a near thing. That's 0.1% a halo would protect against. That's why, reluctantly, I'm for them.

This is exactly my point. Injuries derived from accidents are completely random and unpredictable. Halo may keep an errant wheel/tire out of the cockpit. But the same cannot be guaranteed with smaller objects.

Comparing situations, the spring that injured Massa in Hungary could strike the Halo and go in any of several directions. If striking the Halo squarely, it could be deflected to the side, its energy dissipated. But the chances are greater that the spring will NOT hit squarely, deflecting up and over the cockpit (good) or deflecting downwards and into the cockpit (not good). It's completely random, even with the best of intentions.

I think back to all the drivers we lost ('50s through the mid '70s), and all the MAJOR safety improvements that were made... and I see this Halo device as nothing more than a token nod to safety that will hold credibility only until the first instance in which it fails.

Didn't Henry Surtees accident happen by a tyre that was bouncing and fell on top of his head? That wouldn't be stopped by the Halo. Of course it will prevent some stuff, but what happens is unpredictable...

It also bounced back on track after hitting a tree which wouldn't happen at an F1 track.

mikeyg123 wrote:Hands up who got used to the step noses?

Not used to them at all.

I agree though that we will get used to the halos though and it will be no big deal aesthetically. The cars are already ugly.

Blake wrote:I agree though that we will get used to the halos though and it will be no big deal aesthetically. The cars are already ugly.

Very much a matter of opinion on that one. For me, the current generation are probably the second-best looking of all time, and I know for a fact that what many people consider the best looking cars (early-mid 1990s) I think look much too boxy and simplistic.

The halo is ugly though, and I don't think you'll get much disagreement on that one.

Exediron wrote:

Blake wrote:I agree though that we will get used to the halos though and it will be no big deal aesthetically. The cars are already ugly.

Very much a matter of opinion on that one. For me, the current generation are probably the second-best looking of all time, and I know for a fact that what many people consider the best looking cars (early-mid 1990s) I think look much too boxy and simplistic.

The halo is ugly though, and I don't think you'll get much disagreement on that one.

I like the current gen cars. Clean lines all around....

The halo does blemish the cars imo, personally i feel it was a bit of a rushed reaction to jump on the halo bandwagon by the fia and the halo can present problems for drivers getting out if it deformed creating a wierd shape traping the driver inside.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:

tim3003 wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

Safety is a strange thing. Accidents can be absurdly unlikely - Senna died because his car's suspension member broke off and it went through his helmet. The crash itself wasn't terminal. He was just unlucky the suspension member happened to go straight at his head like an arrow when it broke under the impact. That's the 0.1%.

Maybe that shows you can't guard against every eventuality, but at least carbon fibre suspension members shatter, so it won't happen now.

I recall a few years back there was a 1st corner pile up at Spa, and as Alonso sat powerless in his car another car sailed over his head. Its bottom just cleared his helmet. It would have been amazingly unlucky if the flying car had passed just forward of his roll bar - which it did I think, as well as low enough to take his head off, but it was a near thing. That's 0.1% a halo would protect against. That's why, reluctantly, I'm for them.

This is exactly my point. Injuries derived from accidents are completely random and unpredictable. Halo may keep an errant wheel/tire out of the cockpit. But the same cannot be guaranteed with smaller objects.

Comparing situations, the spring that injured Massa in Hungary could strike the Halo and go in any of several directions. If striking the Halo squarely, it could be deflected to the side, its energy dissipated. But the chances are greater that the spring will NOT hit squarely, deflecting up and over the cockpit (good) or deflecting downwards and into the cockpit (not good). It's completely random, even with the best of intentions.

I think back to all the drivers we lost ('50s through the mid '70s), and all the MAJOR safety improvements that were made... and I see this Halo device as nothing more than a token nod to safety that will hold credibility only until the first instance in which it fails.

Didn't Henry Surtees accident happen by a tyre that was bouncing and fell on top of his head? That wouldn't be stopped by the Halo. Of course it will prevent some stuff, but what happens is unpredictable...

It also bounced back on track after hitting a tree which wouldn't happen at an F1 track.

True, but some street tracks have other things than trees in close proximity to the cars, it could bounce anywhere.

The height at which the tyre his his helmet maybe could've been diverted by the halo:

Source - www.gasmagazine.co.za

Oh, this is the one, thank you UnlikeUday. What a horrible memory this.

It is possible, if's and but's I guess

Siao7 wrote:Oh, this is the one, thank you UnlikeUday. What a horrible memory this.

It is possible, if's and but's I guess

Yeah. In current F1, this exact situation won't arise as the tyres have teethers now, so tyres won't wander off. But I fear for other objects such as tree banches on tracks where there are trees either above or in close proxiimity to he track. Canada comes immediate in my mind.

No form of motorsport can be 100% safe though. I think a shield / screen would've made more sense as it could deflect small objects (like a screw that hurt Massa) or could even deflect a tyre. No doubt, a screen could pose some unseen hassles of its own.

mikeyg123 wrote: It also bounced back on track after hitting a tree which wouldn't happen at an F1 track.

They are farther from the track than in the 70's, but there still remain thousands of trees surrounding Monza. Protected trees at that.

could they not make them see tru like a thin window screen ,strong but easy to see tru

slide wrote:could they not make them see tru like a thin window screen ,strong but easy to see tru

They have tried this. Have a look on Google. I think the problem was that there is distortion to vision through the screen, and what if it gets wet or oil spattered?

Siao7 wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

I think half the grid has also agreed to this. There are inherent risks that are accepted.


My 2c? May as well go closed cars. No gimmicks, either go fully closed or not. None of this cr*p half-*arsed solutions just to call it open top cars.

Totally agree. Fully enclosed cockpits would be even more effective at protecting the driver from debris, would look much more elegant and are well proven to work in numerous other racing series over the years.

As far as I'm concerned though, the halo is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in F1. Yes the sport is safer with it than without but that alone is not sufficient justification to introduce it.

j man wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

I think half the grid has also agreed to this. There are inherent risks that are accepted.


My 2c? May as well go closed cars. No gimmicks, either go fully closed or not. None of this cr*p half-*arsed solutions just to call it open top cars.

Totally agree. Fully enclosed cockpits would be even more effective at protecting the driver from debris, would look much more elegant and are well proven to work in numerous other racing series over the years.

As far as I'm concerned though, the halo is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in F1. Yes the sport is safer with it than without but that alone is not sufficient justification to introduce it.

That's easy for us to say... safely sitting in front of our computers or in the stands... with no responsibility whatsoever if the worst happens. Saving even ONE life is "sufficient justification", especially if the argument is nothing more substantial than aesthetics.

Blake wrote:

j man wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

I think half the grid has also agreed to this. There are inherent risks that are accepted.


My 2c? May as well go closed cars. No gimmicks, either go fully closed or not. None of this cr*p half-*arsed solutions just to call it open top cars.

Totally agree. Fully enclosed cockpits would be even more effective at protecting the driver from debris, would look much more elegant and are well proven to work in numerous other racing series over the years.

As far as I'm concerned though, the halo is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in F1. Yes the sport is safer with it than without but that alone is not sufficient justification to introduce it.

That's easy for us to say... safely sitting in front of our computers or in the stands... with no responsibility whatsoever if the worst happens. Saving even ONE life is "sufficient justification", especially if the argument is nothing more substantial than aesthetics.

Trouble is you could use that to justify not doing motor racing at all. People like to pretend that saving life is the most important thing but if it was we wouldn't be driving road cars or riding horses let alone going motor racing for fun.

There always has to be a cut off somewhere.

Blake wrote:

j man wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:I'd prefer that F1 be .01% less safe without the halos. There, I said it...

I think half the grid has also agreed to this. There are inherent risks that are accepted.


My 2c? May as well go closed cars. No gimmicks, either go fully closed or not. None of this cr*p half-*arsed solutions just to call it open top cars.

Totally agree. Fully enclosed cockpits would be even more effective at protecting the driver from debris, would look much more elegant and are well proven to work in numerous other racing series over the years.

As far as I'm concerned though, the halo is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in F1. Yes the sport is safer with it than without but that alone is not sufficient justification to introduce it.

That's easy for us to say... safely sitting in front of our computers or in the stands... with no responsibility whatsoever if the worst happens. Saving even ONE life is "sufficient justification", especially if the argument is nothing more substantial than aesthetics.

Problem is - and I'm basically playing Devil's advocate here, because the argument has already been made numerous times since it was first tested - that if just ONE life is lost because of the halo deforming, the FIA is even more screwed.

So I'm looking at the arguments. And only really see Henry Surtees accident that could of been preventable if the halo was around.

Senna. Massa. Bianchi accidents would not have been prevented. In my view. Massa may of died as it would of taken medics longer to get him out of the car.

I can only see halos going 1 of 2 ways
1. They stay and it will be the death of formula 1. Fans will leave. Drivers are already not happy over it as it is. And may look to other series.
2. After the fenominal backlash like the qualifying change. Halos will be taken off the car.

Conclusions.
Halo is an excuse to say the motorsports community is further looking too make the sports safer.
There are no beneficial gains for having halo. When over the last few years. We have had More technological advances in helmet safety and also the introduction of the HANS device in 2001 that can be credited more to driver safety. With the wheel tethers coming in 1999 (I think) after development of the system since sennas death.
Freak accidents happen like Weldon and Greg moore are 2 examples of driver fatalities that were not preventable and were freak accidents. As much as there are arguments to the contray. Sennas accident bought the sport safer with the introduction of the wheel tethers. With henry surtees accident only preventable if the wheel tethers worked on the failed car. And Dale Earnhardt crash preventable with the introduction of HANS.
Massas accident was a freak accident. And even if the car had the halo on it. Who is to say that it would of worked. The small area of protection that the device actually serves. And if the spring actually hit the halo. Who says that the halo will not project the spring down into massas cockpit and punchured his chest. (Everyone just presumes objects will go up. They don't think it will go down into the cockpit.)

I think they will eventually be replaced by either the aero screen or a closed cockpit. Sorry but I just don’t think anything that grotesque looking will have any lasting stay in the sport.

Are the FIA being too cautious or just trying to follow suit from other motorsport series?

Nascar is a closed cockpit car which in a way offers more protection to the driver, although there have been deaths in Nascar even. But being in a car such as Nascar, it atleast feels safer wen in an accident with parts flying here & there. Anyway, here is the interior of the 2014 car:


Source - www.caranddriver.com

wire2004 wrote: I can only see halos going 1 of 2 ways
1. They stay and it will be the death of formula 1. Fans will leave. Drivers are already not happy over it as it is. And may look to other series.
2. After the fenominal backlash like the qualifying change. Halos will be taken off the car.

There's a third outcome...

3. Eventually, someone will be seriously injured (or die) from a Halo failure, and the driver's family will sue FIA for failing to protect, as advertised.

IMO, FIA have set themselves up for such a lawsuit. After years of research -- and several devices tried and rejected -- the FIA have decided on a refined solution that will "guarantee" safety. Of course this can't be guaranteed. But that will not stop anyone from pursuing a lawsuit.

Placing misguided trust in this half-arsed solution to a problem that doesn't exist is doomed to failure.

wire2004 wrote:So I'm looking at the arguments. And only really see Henry Surtees accident that could of been preventable if the halo was around.

Senna. Massa. Bianchi accidents would not have been prevented. In my view. Massa may of died as it would of taken medics longer to get him out of the car.

I can only see halos going 1 of 2 ways
1. They stay and it will be the death of formula 1. Fans will leave. Drivers are already not happy over it as it is. And may look to other series.
2. After the fenominal backlash like the qualifying change. Halos will be taken off the car.

Conclusions.
Halo is an excuse to say the motorsports community is further looking too make the sports safer.
There are no beneficial gains for having halo. When over the last few years. We have had More technological advances in helmet safety and also the introduction of the HANS device in 2001 that can be credited more to driver safety. With the wheel tethers coming in 1999 (I think) after development of the system since sennas death.
Freak accidents happen like Weldon and Greg moore are 2 examples of driver fatalities that were not preventable and were freak accidents. As much as there are arguments to the contray. Sennas accident bought the sport safer with the introduction of the wheel tethers. With henry surtees accident only preventable if the wheel tethers worked on the failed car. And Dale Earnhardt crash preventable with the introduction of HANS.
Massas accident was a freak accident. And even if the car had the halo on it. Who is to say that it would of worked. The small area of protection that the device actually serves. And if the spring actually hit the halo. Who says that the halo will not project the spring down into massas cockpit and punchured his chest. (Everyone just presumes objects will go up. They don't think it will go down into the cockpit.)

3. They stay and the fuss over them dies down. F1 is not affected in any way and eventually they become an accepted part of it

Sadly, we have not mentioned the most recent F1 fatality, that of Jules Bianchi; not least I suspect, because the circumstances surrounding it were hushed up. To me this left a bad taste in the mouth, as if the FIA wanted to keep it quiet.

Has anyone seen a film of it? As I recall he slid off in the wet under safety car conditions, and hit a JCB which was removing another crashed car from trackside. Okay he was going too fast and was partly to blame, but why did he die? Would a halo have saved him?

tim3003 wrote:Sadly, we have not mentioned the most recent F1 fatality, that of Jules Bianchi; not least I suspect, because the circumstances surrounding it were hushed up. To me this left a bad taste in the mouth, as if the FIA wanted to keep it quiet.

Has anyone seen a film of it? As I recall he slid off in the wet under safety car conditions, and hit a JCB which was removing another crashed car from trackside. Okay he was going too fast and was partly to blame, but why did he die? Would a halo have saved him?

He submarined the heavy engine section of the crane at speed. I seriously doubt the Halo would have saved him.

Mayhem wrote:

MB-BOB wrote:

tim3003 wrote:Sadly, we have not mentioned the most recent F1 fatality, that of Jules Bianchi; not least I suspect, because the circumstances surrounding it were hushed up. To me this left a bad taste in the mouth, as if the FIA wanted to keep it quiet.

Has anyone seen a film of it? As I recall he slid off in the wet under safety car conditions, and hit a JCB which was removing another crashed car from trackside. Okay he was going too fast and was partly to blame, but why did he die? Would a halo have saved him?

He submarined the heavy engine section of the crane at speed. I seriously doubt the Halo would have saved him.

........ personally i feel it was a bit of a rushed reaction to jump on the halo bandwagon by the fia and the halo can present problems for drivers getting out if it deformed creating a wierd shape traping the driver inside.

Correct he slide under the crane that was rescuing another vehicle. Which brings me back to my previous point of the halo deforming and potentially trapping the driver inside. At the height of the crane impacting jules bianchi's car it would have been a solid hit on the halo...,.

Also has there been mention of how the halo will be affixed to the vehicles? Is it welded in to the fuselage making it all one piece like a roll cage bracing? Is it just bolted after the fuselage is built?
The ones tested were just temporarily affixed to the cars.


Article on jules bianchis dad stating he is doubtful of the halo
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/bian ... gn-677135/

Back on the airwaves, been chomping at the bit to post on this one all week.

I think we will grow to like it. Like it’s been said, at least it’s showing the FIA are trying things to make the drivers safer. Personally, I’d prefer a fully closed cockpit. I think a cockpit would alleviate the distortion issues the Red Bulls shield idea had.

The teams have probably already sold the space to sponsors already, but I would like to see it used to track the champion and points leader going into each race. Have a gold Halo for the reigning champion and a Silver one for the points leader. This might make it somewhat more palatable.

Lastly, it probably would have Bryan Herta feel a little more comfortable when this accident happened