Why is nobody discussing Bottas' Halo problems?

[Restomaniac]

As i said before, just because something makes it safer, it doesn't mean we have to have it. I never said the Halo doesn't make it safer, I said it bring other problems, which I was trying to explain to jolle and You and I my friend ended up discussing after jolle disappeared.

So we have almost disagreed over nothing much at all

This is where we disagree. If it makes it safer and doesn't hugely effect the main focus (speed) then I'm all for it. Sometimes we have to take the decision out of the hands of the drivers to save them from themselves.

So a simple question for you, and Manoah2u (why dont people use their names as usernames ? seems a little odd saying "manoah to you" and arguing with a guy/girl with maniac in their name about safety is a a bit strange too)

Extending run offs with masses of tarmac, (an extra 50 meters on the outside of every corner will guarantee to make it safer (a fact)) will help safety, why are we not doing it ? If current tracks cant accommodate that, then the tracks are not safe enough. Why have cars slamming in to walls, when it can be open space ?
Do you 2 guys want to see this , simple YES or NO answer. I dont want reasons, or cant decide excuses , just answer me that 1 very simple question please.

Run offs are fine as I have already said in this thread. That however doesn't solve Monaco and parts of the tracks like the wall of champions in Canada.

However and here comes the rub if we do that (run offs) we need the stewards to be stronger with regard to the white lines.

Also Restomaniac is a historic WOW gaming name for me.

[NathanOlder]

Thanks for explaining that last bit

If Monaco and Montreal cant have run offs, then they are simply too dangerous then, and theres no need to involve the poor stewards in this convo.

So your answer to my original question is No ?

[Just_a_fan]

All cars racing at Monaco should be fitted with a system to ensure drivers don't drown whilst getting out of a sinking car. After all, there is history of drivers going for a swim.

Actually, Monaco should be dropped from F1 but it won't happen.

[NathanOlder]

What reason would you say it should be dropped for ?

[Restomaniac]

Thanks for explaining that last bit

If Monaco and Montreal cant have run offs, then they are simply too dangerous then, and theres no need to involve the poor stewards in this convo.

So your answer to my original question is No ?

It's obviously a Yes. It would require stewards with balls though and you only have to look at Austin for why they need including in that convo.

As for Monaco I'd drop it in a heartbeat an I have never been against track changes.

[NathanOlder]

Thanks for explaining that last bit

If Monaco and Montreal cant have run offs, then they are simply too dangerous then, and theres no need to involve the poor stewards in this convo.

So your answer to my original question is No ?

It's obviously a Yes. It would require stewards with balls though and you only have to look at Austin for why they need including in that convo.

As for Monaco I'd drop it in a heartbeat an I have never been against track changes.

Wow, im quite surprised at that, as that would mean dropping current corners like Eau rouge, 130R, Stowe, curva grande, Parabolica ect ect ect all in the name of safety.

[Restomaniac]

Thanks for explaining that last bit

If Monaco and Montreal cant have run offs, then they are simply too dangerous then, and theres no need to involve the poor stewards in this convo.

So your answer to my original question is No ?

It's obviously a Yes. It would require stewards with balls though and you only have to look at Austin for why they need including in that convo.

As for Monaco I'd drop it in a heartbeat an I have never been against track changes.

Wow, im quite surprised at that, as that would mean dropping current corners like Eau rouge, 130R, Stowe, curva grande, Parabolica ect ect ect all in the name of safety.

And do you know what? It still wouldn't stop random bits being able to come off cars. So it STILL wouldn't stop the need for the halo.

This is the point as I made earlier, all the other safety features in the world still wouldn't stop the chance of bit of cars flying towards the driver.

[NathanOlder]

Like you say, nothing in the world can stop bits flying towards the driver, as they are moving along at speeds. Motorsport is dangerous, it always will be, if it wasn't dangerous the sport would lose a huge chunk of fans, as bad as it is (not myself) people, millions of people watch motorsport to see crashes. Crashes are spectacular, people want to see spectacular, none of those want to see people hurt, they just want to see carnage whether its cars, bikes, boats.

When Max/Danny make a risky move diving down the inside from a long way back or driving clean around the outside of someone at 130mph people love it , why ? Because they just took a huge risk, a risk with what ? Their car, which is carrying their body, so they risked their health by doing it. Many commentators call it a "ballsy" move. Having guts, risking potentially their lives. 99% of people enjoy seeing this, if not 100%. That either makes us ALL sick people, or just simply enjoying seeing drivers take a risk to win something they have dedicated their lives to.

[djos]

It's obviously a Yes. It would require stewards with balls though and you only have to look at Austin for why they need including in that convo.

As for Monaco I'd drop it in a heartbeat an I have never been against track changes.

Wow, im quite surprised at that, as that would mean dropping current corners like Eau rouge, 130R, Stowe, curva grande, Parabolica ect ect ect all in the name of safety.

And do you know what? It still wouldn't stop random bits being able to come off cars. So it STILL wouldn't stop the need for the halo.

This is the point as I made earlier, all the other safety features in the world still wouldn't stop the chance of bit of cars flying towards the driver.

And that's exactly why we shouldn't be bothering with this half assed halo solution! the FIA should have spent anther year developing a proper, integrated fighter canopy system with the big teams for implementation in 2019.

It'd be substantially better than 17% extra protection, look better and have much better aero properties.

[Restomaniac]

Like you say, nothing in the world can stop bits flying towards the driver, as they are moving along at speeds. Motorsport is dangerous, it always will be, if it wasn't dangerous the sport would lose a huge chunk of fans, as bad as it is (not myself) people, millions of people watch motorsport to see crashes. Crashes are spectacular, people want to see spectacular, none of those want to see people hurt, they just want to see carnage whether its cars, bikes, boats.

When Max/Danny make a risky move diving down the inside from a long way back or driving clean around the outside of someone at 130mph people love it , why ? Because they just took a huge risk, a risk with what ? Their car, which is carrying their body, so they risked their health by doing it. Many commentators call it a "ballsy" move. Having guts, risking potentially their lives. 99% of people enjoy seeing this, if not 100%. That either makes us ALL sick people, or just simply enjoying seeing drivers take a risk to win something they have dedicated their lives to.

For me the risk isn't about personal injury it's about being brave enough to risk being out of the race and a high but safe spectacular crash.

[Restomaniac]

Wow, im quite surprised at that, as that would mean dropping current corners like Eau rouge, 130R, Stowe, curva grande, Parabolica ect ect ect all in the name of safety.

And do you know what? It still wouldn't stop random bits being able to come off cars. So it STILL wouldn't stop the need for the halo.

This is the point as I made earlier, all the other safety features in the world still wouldn't stop the chance of bit of cars flying towards the driver.

And that's exactly why we shouldn't be bothering with this half assed halo solution! the FIA should have spent anther year developing a proper, integrated fighter canopy system with the big teams for implementation in 2019.

It'd be substantially better than 17% extra protection, look better and have much better aero properties.

They did look elsewhere but other things didn't pass as well. I do however think the current outcome won't be the end of the road.

[djos]

And do you know what? It still wouldn't stop random bits being able to come off cars. So it STILL wouldn't stop the need for the halo.

This is the point as I made earlier, all the other safety features in the world still wouldn't stop the chance of bit of cars flying towards the driver.

And that's exactly why we shouldn't be bothering with this half assed halo solution! the FIA should have spent anther year developing a proper, integrated fighter canopy system with the big teams for implementation in 2019.

It'd be substantially better than 17% extra protection, look better and have much better aero properties.

They did look elsewhere but other things didn't pass as well. I do however think the current outcome won't be the end of the road.

Yeah I know they did other tests - however had the FIA got Mercedes, RedBull, Ferrari & Maclaren together working with them on a cockpit solution, they'd be done by now imo. The resources those 4 teams have is staggering. eg RedBull engineers developed the AeroScreen in their spare time with virtually no budget.

F1 power boats managed to build their cockpit solution with teams operating on budgets that would be lost down the back of the Ferrari hospitality couch on an average F1 race weekend. They even include full oxygen systems and a floatation system for the survival cell.

[Restomaniac]

And that's exactly why we shouldn't be bothering with this half assed halo solution! the FIA should have spent anther year developing a proper, integrated fighter canopy system with the big teams for implementation in 2019.

It'd be substantially better than 17% extra protection, look better and have much better aero properties.

They did look elsewhere but other things didn't pass as well. I do however think the current outcome won't be the end of the road.

Yeah I know they did other tests - however had the FIA got Mercedes, RedBull, Ferrari & Maclaren together working with them on a cockpit solution, they'd be done by now imo. The resources those 4 teams have is staggering. eg RedBull engineers developed the AeroScreen in their spare time with virtually no budget.

F1 power boats managed to build their cockpit solution with teams operating on budgets that would be lost down the back of the Ferrari hospitality couch on an average F1 race weekend. They even include full oxygen systems and a floatation system for the survival cell.

Fair enough but this is what we have in the short term. Also the halo stops fans screaming 'It's not open cockpit' whilst bringing safety.

[Just_a_fan]

What reason would you say it should be dropped for ?

Because it's entirely pointless and has no place in F1. Other than that it's great.

I'd rather see a proper circuit in its place on the calendar.

[NathanOlder]

What reason would you say it should be dropped for ?

Because it's entirely pointless and has no place in F1. Other than that it's great.

I'd rather see a proper circuit in its place on the calendar.

Totally agree, Its the most special race of the year, always very excited in the build up to the race, and then by 3pm (uk) on a sunday every year, its such an anti climax. I'd be happy to see it switched for an Imola, Magny Cours ect.