Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,008
I just hope they find a better looking solution.
Poll: Belgian Grand Prix 2018, Spa - Race 13/21
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Soldato
It's not whether it would have prevented injuries or worse in the past*, it's offering a degree of protection for what could happen in the future. If nothing happens before something replaces the halo then who cares?
The halo isn't a catch all, and nobody is pretending it is, but if it could prevent a loss of life or serious injury then I don't even know why it was ever questioned in the first place. Nobody wanted it, but I think most rational people saw it was necessary until a better option comes along.
* It would, not necessarily in F1, but remember the halo is being used or due to be used in other forms of racing too, not just F1. It might not have helped Bianchi, Massa or Dan Wheldon (we'll never know), but it almost certainly would have saved the life of Justin Wilson and Henry Surtees (and Robert Wickens suffered a spinal injury just last week in an Indycar - speculative, but if that injury was caused by a blow to the head damaging his neck, then the halo might have prevented us anxiously waiting to see whether he will walk again, let alone race again).
Caporegime
Yeah, if I worked in public engineering or construction, I'd hope I'd do the kind of analysis I'm talking about instead of just guessing from some pictures. There's a reason people do proper analysis instead of relying on eye-balling it. Not least that people will draw wildly different conclusions from eye-balling the same thing, the rubbish quality animated gif you posted being a case in point.
Caporegime
The "prevent a loss of life or serious injury" card isn't the killer argument you think it is. There are hundreds of things you could do improve F1 safety that aren't done. They aren't done because the trade off is considered not worth it, usually because they're considered to interfere with either the show or the spirit of the formula - for example, rolling starts, going closed wheel and closed cockpit, or just slowing the cars down. If you believe open cockpit racing is too dangerous, stop doing open cockpit racing and switch to closed cockpit only; don't introduce a halfway-house "safety measure" of marginal effectiveness.
edit Ack, haven't we been over this all before? Let's not do it again. I've said my piece I'm not going to argue any more about the Halo in general. At the end of the day, there are significantly bigger issues in F1 at the moment than an ugly, unnecessary safety device that interferes with the purity of open cockpit racing.
Thats what you have to base you "analysis" on, and you seem to just happily dismiss it, even if the impact unfolded like you "guess" it would, it still looking like the wheel would have went flying, but that giving way would leave the front right wing to go flying in instead.
The trade off for the Halo is minimal.
Anyone can see in this case what is a clear deflection of the wheel from the drivers head. Frankly I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.
Anyone can see in this case what is a clear deflection of the wheel from the drivers head. Frankly I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.
Caporegime
No, if you're doing an actual analysis instead of looking at something and guessing like we are, you'd take measurements from multiple videos, and calculate what is likely to happen, ideally taking into account measurements taken from both cars after the collision of panel deformation, etc. Looking at an image - especially one as poor quality as the one you posted - is never going to provide an unambiguous answer on its own.
Given the specifics of the damage the to the Halo, the deflection of the wheel in multiple videos, the trajectory and rotation of both cars at the time of the accident it is quite clear what job the Halo did here.
I have no doubt the FIA will do further analysis of the incident and will be happy to provide full details later. But this is simply a formality at this stage with the evidence provided so far is clear.
The drivers/pundits/commentators and most casual observers are all in agreement, the Halo did it's job in this incident.
I have no doubt the FIA will do further analysis of the incident and will be happy to provide full details later. But this is simply a formality at this stage with the evidence provided so far is clear.
The drivers/pundits/commentators and most casual observers are all in agreement, the Halo did it's job in this incident.
Caporegime
I hope they will. It's clear from the video that the Halo did nothing to protect the driver, but we will see for sure if they carry out a proper analysis. I'll be happy to change my view if a proper analysis shows I'm wrong.
Don
Whether the halo actually prevented it or not in this instance is surely immaterial.
If you could re-run that incident 100 times with slightly different speeds and angles, then if it prevented even 1 fatality, surely it's worthwhile.
I'm no fan of its appearance/implementation but have got used to it, and based on this incident it's more than justified it's existence
If you could re-run that incident 100 times with slightly different speeds and angles, then if it prevented even 1 fatality, surely it's worthwhile.
I'm no fan of its appearance/implementation but have got used to it, and based on this incident it's more than justified it's existence
People who think the Halo saved Leclerc from serious injury:
Jean Todd
Damon Hill
Charles Leclerc
Fernando Alonso
Paddy Lowe
Nick Rosberg
Toto Wolff (an outspoken Halo critic)
Charlie Whiting
People who don't:
Mr Jack
I spent 30 seconds looking for each.
Spot on
Jean Todd
Damon Hill
Charles Leclerc
Fernando Alonso
Paddy Lowe
Nick Rosberg
Toto Wolff (an outspoken Halo critic)
Charlie Whiting
People who don't:
Mr Jack
I spent 30 seconds looking for each.
Spot on
What makes you think you can even come close to saying that. We have plenty of evidence to show it did something, you have NO evidence to say it did nothing.
Caporegime
No, it's the entire point. If it didn't do anything to protect the driver then this is not evidence that it protects the driver and therefore not evidence that it was worth doing.
Caporegime
Argumentum ad populum.
Caporegime
You don't have any evidence at all. You have a video showing the wheel hitting the halo and not coming close to hitting the driver. It's like me wearing an American Football helmet, smacking the grill on something and claiming that this proves that the helmet protected my face.
Quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read. Thats like arguing how seatbelts dont work cause you dont see how it helps in different accidents where the seatbelt doesnt make a difference.
When MANY people who are in a position of significantly more experience and knowledge than you ALL appear to come to the same conclusion. It is at least sensible to understand the consensus lies in a specific position for a reason.
In before Argumentum ad verecundiam as your predictable response...
Frankly I am not sure you have actually watched the relevant videos as your responses are so belligerent and obtuse.
The Halo is designed to stop cockpit intrusions from larger objects, here it clearly deflects an object from intruding into the cockpit. If you ignore the clear video evidence and just know that the object hit the Halo enough to cause of a significant change in direction, then it's position in F1 is valid.
Not withstanding the clear evidence that everyone else can see in the various videos that, in this particular case, a large heavy object was rotating with force towards the driver's helmet and was deflected safely.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Can you understand the simple difference between 'A implies B' and 'not B implies not A'?
Don
With the introduction of the halo, did they reduce the size of the side bits
Damn right, what do experts know eh?