HALO Approved for 2018

[Just_a_fan]

rather go back to those things that made F1.

Slow, low downforce, death traps?

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with the faster, safer, modern stuff. I've watched drivers die. It ruined my Sunday lunch.

[johnny comelately]

rather go back to those things that made F1.

Slow, low downforce, death traps?

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with the faster, safer, modern stuff. I've watched drivers die. It ruined my Sunday lunch.

You must have misunderstood, no one in their right mind would want more danger and see a driver die every month or two, as you said.
But, by incorporating contemporary safety standards with a formula that gives the opportunity for passing (which can be looked on as racing) would be just stellar. As opposed to todays plug and play converged, parity, undercut, overcut, DRS might make it exciting, whoa someone overtook someone sleeping pill
Todays cars arent all that quick relatively. And i think the Rick Mears article posted here somewhere has got great merit regarding aero.

[strad]

strad wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:25 am
rather go back to those things that made F1.

That is taken completely out of context. I nor the author of the original article said they wanted to go back to dangerous car and see people die.
With todays safety standards we can still go back to good racing. The main thrust was to get back real racing not hindered and compromised by all the dependence on aerodynamics.
Why can you not have a discussion without resorting to histrionics and trying to twist what others say.
I can point to a half dozen knowledgeable people that point out that the first thing we need to do to improve the racing is to get rid of so much dependence on aero.
I like the idea of putting the driver back in the drivers seat . That is hardly looking to go back to the 70s or dangerous death trap cars.

[strad]

The things that made F1 was close wheel to wheel racing.
Racing will always be dangerous but with cars where we can have horrendous looking accidents like Alonso's where he came crawling out of his balled up crumpled car without even a sprained ankle or Button's wreck at the chicane after the tunnel at Monaco where he destroyed his car and came out unscathed to comment that he had now realized how safe the cars were and that he then realized he could push things even further.
I'd bet I've been following F1 longer than you and seen more drivers die some of which I am not ashamed to say can still bring me to tears. I am grateful for the safety advancements but I am not grateful for the aero junk that has destroyed actual racing in it's pure sense.
I'm sorry if you not see that we could have the best of the old along with the best of the new.

[Just_a_fan]

Ok, the death traps bit was silly and I apologise for that. However, the bit about being slow wasn't silly. F1 has always been about the being the quickest way around a race track. We could trim off lots of aero, and it might make the "racing better" but if the cars are then slower than the so-called junior formulae, what would be the point of F1? It's the thought that these cars are ridiculously fast and that we mere mortals couldn't drive them properly that makes F1 special. Likewise the LMP1 cars with their downforce and speed compared to the lower classes.

I think the FIA (or Liberty, I suppose) should do a proper study of open wheel car aero and come up with a system that allows the cars to run closer together. I think they could find a way. I think the teams won't like it because they have decades of experience (and money) invested in the current "big wings" formula.

Any changes must ensure that we don't "throw the baby out with the bath water".

[zac510]

The law of unintended consequences is so strong in F1 changing even something as small as putting the driver's name on the engine cover results in a bunch of unintended outcomes. The ongoing saga of trying to improve the aesthetics of the nose show that, despite the best intentions of the FIA to write good rules you will still get rubbish.

The other thing is that F1 is a lot of things to everyone; if you like tech, it has that. If you just like the drivers, you don't need to follow the tech. There are battles for the lead, or battles in the midfield you can watch. There's the battle for a single race, or the overall championship. You can choose which parts are important to you. And so on. Changing back to elements of the 70s is just one person's view of what F1 should be.

[J.A.W.]

Halo is hideous from the onboard camera viewpoint too - as shown live from Melbourne,it blocks so much outlook.

[zac510]

The T-cam shot isn't too bad, but the airbox camera is effen useless!

[J.A.W.]

& driver egress certainly appears significantly more tortuous, even for just climbing out, back in the pit bay.

[J.A.W.]

I see that Force India are running the Havaianas logo - at halo-level sponsorship - how apropos!

So, maybe this slimline variant (complete with vortex generators!) - is a preview of halo 2.0?

[johnny comelately]

FP2 Alonso commenting negatively about the halo

[DiogoBrand]

As a Brazilian, here's all I can say about Havaianas' sponsorship:

[AJI]

The Halo has completely ruined all on-board camera angles. I'd rather they didn't show them at all anymore.
It's the gift that keeps on giving...

[Vasconia]

The Halo has completely ruined all on-board camera angles. I'd rather they didn't show them at all anymore.
It's the gift that keeps on giving...

Same here, I found them completely annoying.

[NathanOlder]

It looks so bad from the onboard, Looks so big bulky and silly. What do some of the pro-halo brigade think of the onboards ?

"it doesnt bother me"
"we'll get used to it"
"I didnt even notice it"
"I think it looks quite cool"

?