Motorsport Off Topic Thread

So @JRS - if I understand you correctly what you're saying is:

Right. 'cause I always say that a car was "a dog for the first half" of the season when it has setup issues in the first race of the second half of the season...Plus, your own link points out that Schumacher won the second race that weekend!

Admit it deuse, Ticktum has no basis for complaint and once again you've posted something which isn't supported by facts. The sooner you admit that the sooner I'll drop this :p

Now I just need one of you to write the above in one of your own posts so he can see it...
 
Thanks Abyss. Now I get to wait and see if he'll call me a bully again for having the temerity to point out when he's posting utter crap :)
 
deuse said:
What I meant was that the team could not get the setup right, which made the car slow to what it is now.
Click to expand...

In which case you should have written that. I can't make a link between "the car being a dog" and a setup related issue that caused some punctures.
 
The_Abyss said:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/...ncident-in-russia.7GdiJZuAoMsUGUMKmGKYq0.html

Fortunate that this was not something heavier, and proves (as if any were necessary) that halo is far from the complete safety device.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but isn't the primary function of the Halo to deflect larger impacts, such as a wheel etc? Smaller pieces are of course going to get through and hit the helmet.

Surely that article can be renamed to, "Racing Driver Surprised That Helmet Does It's Job".
 
Looks like it might have missed his head anyway if he wasn't wearing a helmet, it's a shame drivers have to wear helmets as they're bulky and ugly and restrict the view of the drivers....

/troll :D
 
Malt_Vinegar said:
Looks to me like great validation, that small bits far less likely to cause damage may get through where larger/heavier bits will not.
Click to expand...

The only F1 driver injured by debris that I know of was Massa. Even the FIA's Halo advocates accept it wouldn't have helped in that situation.
 
Thanks, I'll have to go watch that. I was at Brands, but the Sky box failed to record so I've not seen the full race with commentary yet.

Race 1 was a bit dull, but 2 and 3 were excellent.
 
Mr Jack said:
The only F1 driver injured by debris that I know of was Massa. Even the FIA's Halo advocates accept it wouldn't have helped in that situation.
Click to expand...

Quite, but his helmet saved his life, as it was supposed to when objects small enough to get through the Halo hit drivers. In just about the most dangerous possible scenario and more so without the halo, a small, heavy object with a blunt but small point was stopped enough to not kill the driver.

For example:
Helmets are changing in 2019 to lower the visor height (amongst other things) and this helmet design would likely have made Massa's spring accident even safer.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/...troduced-for-2019.6fF05YDXlCEu6M2yIKqEYa.html

The halo is part of a set of measures, that are ever increasingly making driving in single seaters safer. These measures all work in collaboration with overall car design to lower the risk rate again. It is progress that WILL save someones life and likely already has. I just don't understand the hatred of the drive for safety.
 
That sounds better when it is presented as a package of aligned measures. There's no 'hatred of the drive for safety' - quite the opposite, I was pointing out that the halo has in many cases been sold as a panacea for everything whereas it is of course very limited in what it can do, as the above clip shows. The helmet development sounds positive.
 
If that's a push rather than him walking, then it seems to be a silly decision to me.

Ferrari have been at their sharpest for years for the last two and just as they are getting their act together, they sharpen their axe.
 
The_Abyss said:
That sounds better when it is presented as a package of aligned measures. There's no 'hatred of the drive for safety' - quite the opposite, I was pointing out that the halo has in many cases been sold as a panacea for everything whereas it is of course very limited in what it can do, as the above clip shows. The helmet development sounds positive.
Click to expand...

Who anywhere has ever claimed the Halo would be the last line in driver safety because it's the complete safety device? You seem to have taken a stance that no one else every took just so you can deride the halo for failing to be the complete safety device. That's the same as saying, this guy's car burned up, exploded and killed the driver, so that seatbelt didn't live up to everything they said it would.

No one ever came close to saying the halo would stop anything hitting a driver, no one involved in getting it put on cars ever remotely sold it as saving every driver from any kind of incident. No one who ever looked at the thing would ever say it was a complete protection device what with it having three gigantic openings and overall a very small amount of actual surface area covered. It was always about deflecting large objects and pushing cars away from the drivers head if a car goes over the top of the body. That has literally already happened once in Spa.
 
When did anyone outline a several step journey on improving driver safety? Never covered in any of the discussion to the halo decision. There were plenty of discussions about Massa's accident when halo was being discussed, and the response was never 'that risk is being mitigated by another in our planned improved - upgraded helmets in 2019'.
 
drunkenmaster said:
That has literally already happened once in Spa.
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't. The halo has been struck. There's no evidence it helped anyone.

As was predicted before the halo was introduced, advocates are using cases where the halo was hit as evidence of effectiveness when in fact the halo being hit and and the halo working are different events.

Not that it really matters, the halo is pretty much set in stone now regardless of whether it works or not.
 
Mr Jack said:
As was predicted before the halo was introduced, advocates are using cases where the halo was hit as evidence of effectiveness when in fact the halo being hit and and the halo working are different events.
Click to expand...
I don't recall seeing anything like that at all.

Most were giving examples of how it might have helped others in the past, and hoping it wouldn't be needed at all.

Whether Alonso's wheel would have hit Leclerc or not is irrelevant - it did it's job by removing any chance of Leclerc being hit.
 
Wheel tethers, hans device, roll hoop stipulations, cockpit dimensions, increased demands on tub tests, higher cockpit sides, lower driving positions, tighter trackside safety, marshall numbers, marshall equipment, barrier changes, and many many other changes that I cannot remember.
Every change in f1 is carefully worked in relation to other regulations to ensure safety is improved year by year.
The Halo is just a part of the continual drive to protect the most exposed and important parts of.the survival cell.
No one change is going to save everyone, but they all add up to increase the overall safety of drivers and everyone else in the sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom