The headrest side protection was immediately a success in 1996, just remember Max'dad, Jos Verstappen, his crash at Spa-Francorchamps. There are little images of it, but he had such a violent accident that had the headrest not existed, his neck would have snapped under the force, killing him on the spot. i remember that incident just as vividly as Senna's accident, i was tense all the while untill seeing him walk away - then seeing him crumble down and more or less faint just a few steps after leaving the accident scene. again, tense af. he lived to tell thanks to the headrests. but the headrest imho never was really an issue. it changed how the cars looked but really, it didnt change the overall concept.jjn9128 wrote: ↑23 Jul 2017, 17:33The halo regs have not been published (at least I can't find them) but all the teams when they trialled the device had the same dimensions so there must be a template out there.
None of those renders make the halo look any better, as well as making it downright dangerous, this goes for other renders I've seen of canopies and screens. What the halo needs is free air space around the drivers head, i.e. in the event of a deceleration the driver's head doesn't hit the safety device, it would be kinda self defeating otherwise. Interestingly this is what the FIA highlighted as the main issue with Red Bull's aeroscreen, so I'm not sure why they didn't just move the reinforcing bar out to the halo dimensions - or why Red Bull didn't use the halo dimensions when designing the aeroscreen. Perhaps to wrap the screen around required a tighter curvature than the halo, or the halo is actually wider than the cockpit?
It only needs to save one life to be worthwhile, the cockpit side protection was despised (esp. Ferrari in '96) but has saved numerous drivers (Perez at Monaco immediately springs to mind) so to the HANS device. I think after a while we'll stop noticing it or at least move on the next outrage.
the halo/shield does, and the issue is, people -including me- aren't neccesarily against the halo or such, but are against the hastiness on which its now being forced in, it is far from ready, it is far from an acceptable solution, it brings a load of new dangers and concerns, and it supposedly means to solve or prevent (fatal) accidents as mentioned above, whilst exactly those accidents would had zero difference with the halo or shield.
let's take billy monger's accident for example. the plain example of a freak accident. nothing can prevent such a thing from happening. its one of those dangers - i do believe f1 is safer because of the car construction and the experience of the drivers, but its just one example that shows you can't live in a bubble. the wheel hitting the driver straight on the helmet was another freak accident where one might wonder whether the halo had much of a difference too, the top of the helmet is still exposed, and the halo opening still will make it possible for a wheel to hit a driver from the top down. the shape of a wheel [round, not square] simply makes this possible unless it is a closed lid.
bianchi doesnt need mentioning, for reals.
so at the best, its able to deflect a wheel or tire that comes straight at the head somehow. still, the chanches this can happen are almost impossible, and then, we forget 1 important aspect; drivers can STEER. it's not like they are on scalectrix tracks, or simply inside rollercoaster carts. they can steer away from danger.
as for the other reason for this to be concidered, schumacher almost getting hit by a car in his face when facing the wrong direction after contact - i'm 100% sure the device will not hold the weight and exponential energy force that a formula 1 car carries. even worse - i think there's a chance this device instead when hit might actually crush a drivers head instead. again, so many things to work out before implementing it.
thats why i still grasp to understand how on earth this suddenly becomes mandated.
