I thought the rule was just clarified? Not changed. It's not like any other car billows smoke upon start-up like the Ferrari does, what they are doing might not be clear, but they've not exactly covered it up..
Motorsport Off Topic Thread
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Caporegime
If you think open racing is too dangerous for drivers to participate in then the solution is to stop doing open racing and only do closed racing, not adopt a half way house that would not have dealt with the two most serious F1 incidents of recent times (neither Bianci's nor Massa's would have been prevented by the Halo). If you don't think open racing is too dangerous, then carry on doing it instead of adopting a half way house.
But, in any case, that doesn't really have much to do with the dubious use of evidence to claim that the Halo saved a life. Bad interpretation of events simply leads to bad decision making.
It was pretty damn close though, looking by the rubber marks along the top of the halo and the near the airbox.
I'm quite sure without it there would be tyre marks on his helmet and he'd have got a pretty good bang on the helmet too.It was pretty damn close though, looking by the rubber marks along the top of the halo and the near the airbox.
Caporegime
Judging from the time sequence photos, I don't think that's likely. Hitting the halo is not the same as hitting the helmet there's a large gap between them and whereas the halo is in-line with the airbox, the driver is not.
I am pretty certain that with the wonders of, hindsight and sow motion video, etc then in this particular situation we can reasonably safely say the driver was not in a huge amount of danger.
HOWEVER
Would Mr jack be happy to sit in a car without a halo, while several other cars are fired from air cannons at his car at similar angles and trajectories ?
Personally i would never do so, but in a car with a halo I would.
This one time the halo may not have genuinely saved the drivers life, but sooner or later there will be ONE occasion when it does save a drivers life, and that ONE time will be complete and utter total validation for having halo's on every car.
That is the whole point of any safety device, the one in ten, or one in a hundred, or the the one in a million where the device does save a life.
Personally I hated the look and design of the longer F1 cars once the ruling came out that drivers feet have to be behind the front axle line, I thought the short compact cars looked great, but they were not safe, and even minor crashes resulted in broken legs, feet, ankles etc, so I totally get whey the cars are now longer, they are so much safer, still does not mean they look any better, but I just have to get used to it.
HOWEVER
Would Mr jack be happy to sit in a car without a halo, while several other cars are fired from air cannons at his car at similar angles and trajectories ?
Personally i would never do so, but in a car with a halo I would.
This one time the halo may not have genuinely saved the drivers life, but sooner or later there will be ONE occasion when it does save a drivers life, and that ONE time will be complete and utter total validation for having halo's on every car.
That is the whole point of any safety device, the one in ten, or one in a hundred, or the the one in a million where the device does save a life.
Personally I hated the look and design of the longer F1 cars once the ruling came out that drivers feet have to be behind the front axle line, I thought the short compact cars looked great, but they were not safe, and even minor crashes resulted in broken legs, feet, ankles etc, so I totally get whey the cars are now longer, they are so much safer, still does not mean they look any better, but I just have to get used to it.
Soldato
I just love that you guys are debating whether a couple of inches here or there is important. But while we're speculating, remember that the halo would have affected the path of the car too - without it the car might have landed gearbox first on the driver's head for all we know.
In the end the halo did its job and in this instance eliminated any chance of the driver being injured. That's all that should matter.
In the end the halo did its job and in this instance eliminated any chance of the driver being injured. That's all that should matter.
Yeah if it did the job it did the job. I don' tthink anyone is going to stop watching bec of the halo.
Sure, they will. Probably sell no models of the cars but can't see any other effect. Good place for advertising with the on board camera!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,038
No Monaco thread? Don't they practice today?
Man of Honour
Do we really need a race thread? I thought Monaco was just a parade.
Soldato
That's the spirit!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,038
Qualifying is basically the race. Saying that, I am away all weekend so will miss the lot. Not that I will miss much. The only thing that could vaguely make this interesting is a bit of light rain.
Soldato
Looking bright and sunny all weekend, no chance of rain at all.
The FIA should move this race to September.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,038
Man of Honour
They don't like rain because it's a glam event disguised as a race.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,038
Soldato
Completely unnecessary
Probably used to sandbag Ferrari's performance and help Mercedes
Probably used to sandbag Ferrari's performance and help Mercedes
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,038
It is just a monitoring device. All it means is that they are monitoring the second battery that only Ferrari have installed. Seems fair.
Soldato
Lack of evidence isn't proof of innocence. That's why they are now investigating the claims that have been made.
If there's still no evidence of tampering after the investigation, then they're in the clear.
Soldato
nope just instigating at this point
The expression goes
"if there's smoke there's a fire so no smoke no fire?"