HALO Approved for 2018

[Just_a_fan]

Why does it always boil down to wanting to see drivers die with so many of you?
It certainly does not. However there does need to be a sense of danger.
Racing should require a certain level of bravery.

Why? Why do you have to be "brave" to race? Drivers were "brave" in the past because the situation was such that death stalked the paddock at every race. I would bet that drivers didn't consider themselves "brave" in most cases, however. No more than a rock climber considers himself brave. I've climbed (not very well, sadly) and whilst I scared myself a bit, I don't consider that I was "brave" in doing it.

Today, we don't have accept death in the paddock because we can be, and are, better at dealing with the energies involved.

More important in racing, surely, is skill.

[NathanOlder]

Why risk health at all ? just ban motorsport and have the drivers shift over to ESports. No one gets hurt that way, and the snowflake generation have their fun without any risks.

[Jolle]

Why risk health at all ? just ban motorsport and have the drivers shift over to ESports. No one gets hurt that way, and the snowflake generation have their fun without any risks.

The risk of a big accident is wonderful, thrilling to see but the real good ones end with everybody walking away in good health.

[zac510]

Risk doesn't have to mean just your risking your health. Risk is also losing championship points, losing face, losing laptime, losing track position, losing money or your drive, which every driver will have to deal with when they make decisions on the track, HALO or not.

Is there anything you do in which you risk your life, Nathan?

[Just_a_fan]

the snowflake generation have their fun without any risks.

Ah yes, the "snowflake generation". That old chestnut.

Billy Monger would be part of that generation. Go ask him about health risks. Sure, he's a driven guy and making the best of what he has, but given the choice he'd have walked away from that accident. And I bet you he didn't go in to motor racing to be "brave".

[strad]

I was talking ,before I retired, with a group that included drag racers and snow mobile racers and off road racers and the general agreement was that the only things that are really fun, are those things where you can get killed.
As for climbing I scoff at the new age guys. When I was young we truly free climbed. No ropes or pitons and there were quite a few times I was stuck in positions where I made my peace and figured I might well die.
I guess me an my friends are what some call adrenalin junkies.
Why would a person jump out of a perfectly good airplane or bungee jump off a 300ft bridge except for the adrenalin rush?
If you read bios and articles from the old days, not 1998, there are many drivers who admit that part of what attracted them to racing was the thrill and the danger.
I lost a video clip from one of his bios where Jackie Stewart let loose with the ultimate Freudian slip.... He said "Back when I was living "... when what he meant to say was back when I was racing.

[henry]

What people do for their own entertainment and what people require others to do in order to provide vicarious thrills are two entirely separate and different things.

[NathanOlder]

Risk doesn't have to mean just your risking your health. Risk is also losing championship points, losing face, losing laptime, losing track position, losing money or your drive, which every driver will have to deal with when they make decisions on the track, HALO or not.

Is there anything you do in which you risk your life, Nathan?

I drive my car to work without a Halo. At the weekends I ride my bike for some fun.

[NathanOlder]

the snowflake generation have their fun without any risks.

Ah yes, the "snowflake generation". That old chestnut.

Billy Monger would be part of that generation. Go ask him about health risks. Sure, he's a driven guy and making the best of what he has, but given the choice he'd have walked away from that accident. And I bet you he didn't go in to motor racing to be "brave".

Billy is part of that generation you are correct.But the kids in motorsport are fearless, brave and thrill seekers, they are some of the exceptions in the young adults today. If all the safety measures continue for another 30 years, Motorsport will be banned. What will we all do then ?
An interesting question to put towards all drivers from F3 to F1 would be if they would run with a Halo or not, if given the choice. Then what would some of the people on this forum think of the drivers that would run without the Halo?

[Big Tea]

Everyone ran without a halo before it came along. People drove without seat belts and rode motorcycles without helmets and visors.

It is more or less as it was when the laws for seat belts and helmets came along, in that most people did not like them.

Today I would not dream of not using either at all times. The world changes and we not only accept changes, but adopt them.

[NathanOlder]

Comparing the Halo to a seat belt is insane.

The seat belt saves a life in probably 80% of crashes in F1 , maybe more.
The Halo hasn't saved a single life yet in F1.


And why do people think I want the Halo removed, my argument from about page 9 of this thread is the Halo means getting out the car when upside-down is near impossible!!!

[Big Tea]

Comparing the Halo to a seat belt is insane.

The seat belt saves a life in probably 80% of crashes in F1 , maybe more.
The Halo hasn't saved a single life yet in F1.


And why do people think I want the Halo removed, my argument from about page 9 of this thread is the Halo means getting out the car when upside-down is near impossible!!!

It is exactly the same thing. it is compulsory whatever your feelings about it. We just have to accept it because it is not going to go away what ever you me or anyone else 'proves'.

I do not like it, but as with other 'laws' it is here and has to be noted.

[NathanOlder]

Its nothing like the seat belt in terms of safety value. Anyone can see how valuable the seat belt is. Again, the halo has had 1 debatable use this season at spa. The seat belt has has 100's every season. The 2 are a million miles apart

[Big Tea]

Its nothing like the seat belt in terms of safety value. Anyone can see how valuable the seat belt is. Again, the halo has had 1 debatable use this season at spa. The seat belt has has 100's every season. The 2 are a million miles apart

I don't know your age, but at the time seat belts were made compulsory for every 'expert' that said they save lives there was one that said they cost lives, for just the same reason of not being able to get out or 'lean to one side' to duck a post coming in the car etc. I did not like being told I HAD to wear a belt, even though I knew. as did everyone else, that it was safer with them. It was the 'compulsory' part I objected too, just as with the Halo.

[Jolle]

Its nothing like the seat belt in terms of safety value. Anyone can see how valuable the seat belt is. Again, the halo has had 1 debatable use this season at spa. The seat belt has has 100's every season. The 2 are a million miles apart

I don't know your age, but at the time seat belts were made compulsory for every 'expert' that said they save lives there was one that said they cost lives, for just the same reason of not being able to get out or 'lean to one side' to duck a post coming in the car etc. I did not like being told I HAD to wear a belt, even though I knew. as did everyone else, that it was safer with them. It was the 'compulsory' part I objected too, just as with the Halo.

I still know people who refuse to wear their seatbelts because they have this theory they can’t escape when they drive into a canal.

They know a guy who knew a guy who was saved because he didn’t wear his seat belt in the seventies.

The halo no-halo discussion is almost hilariously similar to this wisdom.

In a few years time we look back to the pre-halo cars the same way we look back at the pre-headrest or aluminum cars now. “You mean they had rules to protect their legs in several ways but then just stick their heads outside the car?”