HALO Approved for 2018

[Vasconia]

Its uglly and I can´t imagine how drivers can driver comfortably with it. But I am afraid we must get used to it.

[TAG]

IMO, this is more to protect the sport against liability lawsuits than it is to protect the drivers.

[McL-H]

https://www.change.org/p/federation-int ... ormula-one

Guys, if you are against the halo, sign the petition to let them know. I normally don't participate in these petitions, but this is one I think is important for our sport. Also, please share this link to as many people possible.

[Manoah2u]

Well color me surprised.

This actually gets mandated? Why on earth?
Wheels don't come off. simple as that. The Henry Surtees crash was very rare but if i recall correctly, mainly the cause because there was not a similar application to wheel tethers like there are in F1 today. In other words, that wheel never would have come off today, and so no wheel will come loose

F1 wheels don't come off anymore - period. They are brutally penalized should they come off, so apart from the rules in itself, it's very 'unrewarding' if they can come off - somehow.

So why on earth mount some hideous flawed device that gets drivers dizzy, hampers their visibility which then causes unneccesary and unknown new dangers, for a 'theoretical danger'
that in all reality can NOT happen anymore.

and as i've said a million times by now. the bianchi crash is irrelevant in this as the harm inflicted on him would have had zero change with the halo device - it might even have been worse concidering the halo device would have been planted into his helmet with that force and speed.

[Manoah2u]

https://www.change.org/p/federation-int ... ormula-one

Guys, if you are against the halo, sign the petition to let them know. I normally don't participate in these petitions, but this is one I think is important for our sport. Also, please share this link to as many people possible.

signed.

[TankMarvin]

Well color me surprised.

This actually gets mandated? Why on earth?
Wheels don't come off. simple as that. The Henry Surtees crash was very rare but if i recall correctly, mainly the cause because there was not a similar application to wheel tethers like there are in F1 today. In other words, that wheel never would have come off today, and so no wheel will come loose

F1 wheels don't come off anymore - period. They are brutally penalized should they come off, so apart from the rules in itself, it's very 'unrewarding' if they can come off - somehow.

So why on earth mount some hideous flawed device that gets drivers dizzy, hampers their visibility which then causes unneccesary and unknown new dangers, for a 'theoretical danger'
that in all reality can NOT happen anymore.

and as i've said a million times by now. the bianchi crash is irrelevant in this as the harm inflicted on him would have had zero change with the halo device - it might even have been worse concidering the halo device would have been planted into his helmet with that force and speed.

Perez's wheel detached from the car when he hit the barriers in Azerbaijan.

[Manoah2u]

IMO, this is more to protect the sport against liability lawsuits than it is to protect the drivers.

agreed. that's what i've been suspecting for a while too.

something however tells me that this is going to get banned after the first race.
why?

drivers who have tried this already said they get dizzy [yes, ALSO the aeroscreen makes them dizzy],
they have said it blocks their view,
and it is a safety concern for escaping the car when upside down.

ugly is no reason unfortunately but offcourse it is a fact that it's absolutely HIDEOUS.
atleast the aeroscreen visually is somewhat 'ok'. well, the board member that made his own design goes for the win, but well, this is the FIA.

so we're going to get drivers that get dizzy and can't do much laps. qually is going to be a mess.
then we get the race and drivers are going to stop before halfway through as they are going to crash because they lose their focus due to getting dizzy. then they're going to slam into other drivers 'i did not see him' because of the halo. and because of that we're going to get cars flip and then we get the problem of leaving that wreck.

i think the FIA might do this for 2 reasons; the above regarding the liability lawsuits - and because it's probable it's going to fail horrendously and put a stop to it once and for all. the result will be that it will actually be more dangerous. which then sets the FIA completely free, with the possibility to say ; we've tried - it made things worse. end of issue.

[Big Mangalhit]

Well color me surprised.

This actually gets mandated? Why on earth?
Wheels don't come off. simple as that. The Henry Surtees crash was very rare but if i recall correctly, mainly the cause because there was not a similar application to wheel tethers like there are in F1 today. In other words, that wheel never would have come off today, and so no wheel will come loose

F1 wheels don't come off anymore - period. They are brutally penalized should they come off, so apart from the rules in itself, it's very 'unrewarding' if they can come off - somehow.

So why on earth mount some hideous flawed device that gets drivers dizzy, hampers their visibility which then causes unneccesary and unknown new dangers, for a 'theoretical danger'
that in all reality can NOT happen anymore.

and as i've said a million times by now. the bianchi crash is irrelevant in this as the harm inflicted on him would have had zero change with the halo device - it might even have been worse concidering the halo device would have been planted into his helmet with that force and speed.

Perez's wheel detached from the car when he hit the barriers in Azerbaijan.

Also did Webber's in nurburgring 2013.
Also Buemi China 2010

[Jolle]

I would like to see Pascal Wehrlein’s cam to see how close he was being in a wheelchair the rest of his life at that Monaco crash.

[proteus]

IMO, this is more to protect the sport against liability lawsuits than it is to protect the drivers.

agreed. that's what i've been suspecting for a while too.

something however tells me that this is going to get banned after the first race.
why?

drivers who have tried this already said they get dizzy [yes, ALSO the aeroscreen makes them dizzy],
they have said it blocks their view,
and it is a safety concern for escaping the car when upside down.

ugly is no reason unfortunately but offcourse it is a fact that it's absolutely HIDEOUS.
atleast the aeroscreen visually is somewhat 'ok'. well, the board member that made his own design goes for the win, but well, this is the FIA.

so we're going to get drivers that get dizzy and can't do much laps. qually is going to be a mess.
then we get the race and drivers are going to stop before halfway through as they are going to crash because they lose their focus due to getting dizzy. then they're going to slam into other drivers 'i did not see him' because of the halo. and because of that we're going to get cars flip and then we get the problem of leaving that wreck.

i think the FIA might do this for 2 reasons; the above regarding the liability lawsuits - and because it's probable it's going to fail horrendously and put a stop to it once and for all. the result will be that it will actually be more dangerous. which then sets the FIA completely free, with the possibility to say ; we've tried - it made things worse. end of issue.

Contracts are used to protect somebody from a lawsuit. U put the clause in it, which says "racing under youre own responsability" and it is a done deal for me. No more problems with liability to be feared off. Any driver that doesnt want to sign, well show them the doors, in the end those large sums of money will allways win them over no matter how u put it.

No one wants to see people getting killed, but if it is in someones fate it will happen, maybe at 300kmh or at 50kmh in his hometown driving from a grocery store getting hit by a loose frisbee from a nearby sportpark...

I dont like mentioning it, but look at Michael Schumacher. The man drove in one of more brutal eras of F1 in a time when two drivers were killed, than getting a 200kmh head-on collision with the barriers only fracturing his leg, but when he retires he gets knocked out by a freekish accident on a skiing venue changing his life permanently... Like i said, if it is deemed to happen, it will happen.

And for the end one short anecdote: There was a man to which a fortune teller predicted his death (lets say april 25th). The man ofcourse dismissed the fortune teller and lived his life normally until the april 24th when he got a bit nervous that the prediction is true. He decided that on 25th he is going absolutely nowhere and that he will wait out the day in his apartment - in case if the prediction was correct. On 25th he wakes up, knowing he is going nowhere, lies in his bed sure that nothing is going to happen to him. 5 seconds later pins snap on the big painting that hangs over his head and kills him on the spot.

[Moose]

Perez's wheel detached from the car when he hit the barriers in Azerbaijan.

Also did Webber's in nurburgring 2013.
Also Buemi China 2010

Not forgetting how close we came to Alonso being jam in 2012/Spa, And Massa being dead in 2009/Hungary.

This device has very little in the way of drawbacks, and offers significant advantages. Why on earth would you petition against it?

[Sniffit]

Aw crap, well we always have indycar.

[proteus]

Perez's wheel detached from the car when he hit the barriers in Azerbaijan.

Also did Webber's in nurburgring 2013.
Also Buemi China 2010

Not forgetting how close we came to Alonso being jam in 2012/Spa, And Massa being dead in 2009/Hungary.

This device has very little in the way of drawbacks, and offers significant advantages. Why on earth would you petition against it?

If the car slams into this "device" it will break as a toothpick, making sharp death spikes for the driver and his head. I seriously doubt it is capable to stop 600, 700 kg of weight, not to mention that cars aint stationary in the crash so it means double, triple, or even more than that of the raw weight of the cars.

[JesperA]

This device has very little in the way of drawbacks, and offers significant advantages. Why on earth would you petition against it?

Very little drawbacks? I disagree; this device needs a dubbel freak accident to actually serve its purpose, the first freak accident needs to create an item that projects it towards a drivers head AND the second freak "accident" require that item to hit the upper radius of the device to deflect the item upwards or hit it dead center on the radius to deflect the item back towards its original trajectory.

But the second part described above might just as well hit the lower radius of the device and thus project the piece of item down towards a drivers helmet or even worse; the drivers unprotected torso.

So now FIA have a device that either can decrease or increase the result/harm of the first freak accident, is that what should be called a "security device"? A security device, that have the odds to increase the damage on a driver, in my book, that is NOT a "security device".

The device can also collect items, for instance, if another cars front wing cascade comes of and projects in an upward trajectory toward another driver, that item, without a halo, have the odds/chance to miss the driver completely, but with a halo, the odds/chance can increase and work as a "collector" of the front wing cascade and bounce the trajectory towards the driver.

This device CAN work, if its strong enough, for tires or maybe even a Martin Brundle style car ontop of his car, maybe, but if that device fails when something bigger hits it, it too will create an hazardous item that can project into the driver.

If you play the odds and give in to the notion of "freak accidents" this device HAVE the potential to increase the harm to a driver; however unlikely that scenario is is irrelevant, it could happen, so no, to me, this is not something i would call a "security device", its insane to even vote for a security device that actually; if extremely unlucky, could result in more harm than without it.

[Manoah2u]

So.......since FIA claimed the nose shapes have been mandated to be like they are, causing the idiotic platypus, phallus, thumb etc. shapes the past years, because of SAFETY reasons,
to prevent in case of contact, that another car slides on top of the tub and then smashes the driver's head to pulp......we can assume now that we can see a return of high noses and
that rule can be scratched?