James Cook
Marcas fan
Just remember how most of this electric energy is generated. Coal, oil, gas, nuclear.
Halo Confirmed for F1 2018
- Thread starter Paul Jeffrey
- Start date
I used to watch F1 for the technological side of motorsport. It was the pinacle of making a car go as fast as possible around a circuit and using every last inch of the rule book to achieve it.
For me in the last number of years it's been dying a slow death and this is the final nail. I don't see myself watching F1 next season. It looks so awful and to be honest in my opinion not required at all. The tracks have more run off than the space shuttle landing sites these days and now this?
There was so much complaining about having vertical stabilisers, shark fins because they were ugly. What is this monstrosity?
Damon Hill said some months back that we still race horses and nobody uses horses anymore. This is what F1 is becoming. something that is no longer the peak of technology. Just a poor spectacle.
There was so much complaining about having vertical stabiliser, shark fins because they were ugly. What is this monstrosity?
I'll continue to enjoy my WEC, IMSA and Blancpain racing.
For me in the last number of years it's been dying a slow death and this is the final nail. I don't see myself watching F1 next season. It looks so awful and to be honest in my opinion not required at all. The tracks have more run off than the space shuttle landing sites these days and now this?
There was so much complaining about having vertical stabilisers, shark fins because they were ugly. What is this monstrosity?
Damon Hill said some months back that we still race horses and nobody uses horses anymore. This is what F1 is becoming. something that is no longer the peak of technology. Just a poor spectacle.
There was so much complaining about having vertical stabiliser, shark fins because they were ugly. What is this monstrosity?
I'll continue to enjoy my WEC, IMSA and Blancpain racing.
In England and the USA it is, but in countries that actually want to develop instead of staying in the 19th and 20th century and not relying on coal it's not, even though one specific country has a lot of oil. I'm talking about Norway. From what I've seen certainly 50% of the new sales is electric. Despite the long distances over there, electric cars are absolutely the way to go, and the energy is clean. Hydro-electric stations, solar and wind energy. Concerning the hydro electric stations, the odd thing is there's not even a page on Wikipedia about it in English!!! And maybe there's a reason for that.. Dutch: waterkrachtcentrale, German: Wasserkraftwerk, Spanish: central hidroeléctrica. It's there in Norwegian, polish, Italian, but no English.
Then there's a solar race every year in Australia, usually won by the university of Delft. So solar technology is improved continuously.
If F1 keeps relying on fuel there's nothing to gain from the sport anymore. If you want to improve you have to invest in and accept new technology and in this case it's electric.
I think around 2022 F1 and formula E will merge. Especially since in 2025 the first countries will ban new cars on fossil energy, so racing there with polluting cars is no option anymore.
Last edited:
Perfect solution:
Turn the sport into an e-sport. Drivers use multiplayer simulators. No track fees, no annoying crowds to manage and still get the big tv and sponsorship dollars. It can then even be better integrated into the twitface social media software users the sport is so desperate to satisfy.
No danger, no deaths and those of us who pine for the old days of F1 can move on to something else as we are no longer the target audience anyway.
Turn the sport into an e-sport. Drivers use multiplayer simulators. No track fees, no annoying crowds to manage and still get the big tv and sponsorship dollars. It can then even be better integrated into the twitface social media software users the sport is so desperate to satisfy.
No danger, no deaths and those of us who pine for the old days of F1 can move on to something else as we are no longer the target audience anyway.
IMO this is bullshit.
It's ugly as **** (the canopy is much nicer but I see the difficulties) and in a case like Massa's still useless.
First, they make the cars beautiful and exciting again and then they attach a handrail. Everything just for the illusion of safety.
For me, the aesthetics of a race car is very important. I'm not entirely sure I will keep watching F1 if they are this hideous.
I wonder what will happen to MotoGP ...
It's ugly as **** (the canopy is much nicer but I see the difficulties) and in a case like Massa's still useless.
First, they make the cars beautiful and exciting again and then they attach a handrail. Everything just for the illusion of safety.
For me, the aesthetics of a race car is very important. I'm not entirely sure I will keep watching F1 if they are this hideous.
I wonder what will happen to MotoGP ...
I guess now we'll need to run dual monitors instead of triples to get an authentic F1 sim racing experience, nice bezel right up the middle! Seriously though, the Bianchi incident highlights issues regarding safety car use, F1's regulations are more lax than series that take it overboard (eg. v8 supercars are very conservative nowadays and doesn't draw on its manly Group A roots). While the halo isn't aesthetically pleasing it will save a life in coming seasons. Maybe they can offset it with a sweetener like a 3/8" hole drilled in the exhaust pipe 
I would agree with you, but there is one problem:
That may work in Norway with it's "small" population and their geographic location. Here in Germany it's not that simple. Look, in Norway, you have a population of 13 peoples per km². In Germany there are 230 peoples per km². Also, we here got few times more cars then Norway has inhabitants in total, while both are more or less equal in large. In Norway, with it's rivers and fjords, you have more then enough space for hydropower, but we here in Germany don't have that much space/opportunitys for enough renewable energy production, as it would be necessary for the overall consumption. If you now ban all cumbusters and change them into electric cars, you would need a "gas"-station every 10 meters, to provide the demand and to avoid a total gridlock because of the long charging-phase, that a electric car needs. Also, where to generate that additional electric demand? Only way would be coal, oil and/or nuclear energy. Useless in terms of ecologics, the combuster wouldn't be dirtyer. Regarding that, now look at countrys like India or Bangladesh, where the infrastructure is much bader then in our western countrys.
I'm sorry, but I don't see a real future for e-mobility in most countrys.
But that's all Offtopic, so let's get back to the "Halo".
Isn't this from the game with the same name Helo? LolI can't get this guy out of my head every time I read it. Maybe a new mandatory crash helmet for 2018?
James Cook
Marcas fan
Don't be ridiculous. There has been huge investment in renewables in the UK, particularly wind and solar, with many huge wind farms built off the North Sea coast near where I live. As you should know, the UK is one of the world leaders in science, research and development. But the reality is, the UK is well over 65m people and Norway is about 5m. Reliable, high-output electricity generation for large populations still needs conventional fossil and nuclear fuel power stations at its core and that won't change for many decades.
By the way, Germany, with it's anti-nuclear stance, is hugely reliant on coal power generation, although they do buy nuclear-generated energy from France.
By the way, Germany, with it's anti-nuclear stance, is hugely reliant on coal power generation, although they do buy nuclear-generated energy from France.
That's exactly it. XD
F_B
Premium
By the way, Germany, with it's anti-nuclear stance, is hugely reliant on coal power generation, although they do buy nuclear-generated energy from France.
Yeah, we know how to shift problems.
Like some posts on here I'm neither for or against about the HALO.
I would have preferred a solution like Vettel ran with at Silverstone. It looked pretty good, does the job and still gives the feeling of a single seater without looking like an LMP car.
Maybe it would have worked better with a flatter front profile to try and get round the reflection/visibility issues Vettel was referring to but it seems the FIA are determined to introduce HALO as soon as they can.
If it saves at least one driver from serious head injuries then I'm for it.
Indycar was looking at a front canopy solution for ovals I think? Maybe that's been dropped now but in the case of ovals a canopy certainly makes sense. There have been injuries in the States caused by debris hitting drivers on the head and anything to reduce that risk in my view is a good thing.
The one other thing is helmet regulations. Why the FIA don't increase the safety requirement of F1 level helmets as well is one I thing I would also consider.
I am reminded of when the side head protection was brought in (in 1995 I think it was). Loads of enthusiasts were unhappy that you wouldn't be able to see the drivers "at work" any more and granted the arms and body became almost hidden from view, but over time we got used to it. Although of course the HALO is for certain "in your face"
Maybe as technology increases we will move to a screen eventually (I hope so).
I would have preferred a solution like Vettel ran with at Silverstone. It looked pretty good, does the job and still gives the feeling of a single seater without looking like an LMP car.
Maybe it would have worked better with a flatter front profile to try and get round the reflection/visibility issues Vettel was referring to but it seems the FIA are determined to introduce HALO as soon as they can.
If it saves at least one driver from serious head injuries then I'm for it.
Indycar was looking at a front canopy solution for ovals I think? Maybe that's been dropped now but in the case of ovals a canopy certainly makes sense. There have been injuries in the States caused by debris hitting drivers on the head and anything to reduce that risk in my view is a good thing.
The one other thing is helmet regulations. Why the FIA don't increase the safety requirement of F1 level helmets as well is one I thing I would also consider.
I am reminded of when the side head protection was brought in (in 1995 I think it was). Loads of enthusiasts were unhappy that you wouldn't be able to see the drivers "at work" any more and granted the arms and body became almost hidden from view, but over time we got used to it. Although of course the HALO is for certain "in your face"
Maybe as technology increases we will move to a screen eventually (I hope so).
Last edited:
"You have to make the right decision in such a situation. The Halo is the wrong one."
Lauda thinks that the timing of the FIA's decision is especially poor, because F1 had just embarked on an overhaul of regulations to make cars look better in a bid to attract new fans.
He views the arrival of a Halo as a backwards step. (from motorsport.com)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh wait, I did say it.
Lauda thinks that the timing of the FIA's decision is especially poor, because F1 had just embarked on an overhaul of regulations to make cars look better in a bid to attract new fans.
He views the arrival of a Halo as a backwards step. (from motorsport.com)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh wait, I did say it.
wow! this goes better and better! in a world where there is no heroes anymore...!
Last edited:
next year the f1 will be shi_t
As Ive stated before the best solution to the "flying debris issue" is to stop all the stupid break away components, reducing the chance of airborne debris during or after an accident.
If the FIA was truly concerned about this they should look to the cause of the problem, changing the regs on how many winglets the cars have, these micro components are designed to break off or fragment during impacts no matter how big or small, the front wing is a prime example, the slightest touch and their screwed. We've all watched this happen for years now, so have the FIA, but instead of seeing it as a problem they ignored it until now, and then attempt to implement another tacked on piece of carbon fibre to prevent a problem that can be resolved with the minimum of effort and cost.
Maybe a composite aluminum should be used in place of carbon fibre, it would be light weight, strong, durable but wouldn't break up or splinter like carbon fibre, and would probably be cheaper to manufacture.
Even the shield would be a better concept, it just needs to be refined. Poly carbonate is very strong and is now used by V8 Supercars for all windows, the fact that Vettel didn't approve is no reason to drop the concept, he claimed it was distorting his view, this is an easy problem to solve, change the shape so the distortion is removed, as far as the claim he made that the aero distortion pushed his head/helmet forward is debatable, and even if it did, the problem is easy fixed in a wind tunnel isn't it.
IMO this problem is so easy to overcome and don't understand why the F1 powers that be can't see it too, or has Jean Todt made up his mind regardless, another crony that should of left the F1 fold with his mate Bernie.
If the FIA was truly concerned about this they should look to the cause of the problem, changing the regs on how many winglets the cars have, these micro components are designed to break off or fragment during impacts no matter how big or small, the front wing is a prime example, the slightest touch and their screwed. We've all watched this happen for years now, so have the FIA, but instead of seeing it as a problem they ignored it until now, and then attempt to implement another tacked on piece of carbon fibre to prevent a problem that can be resolved with the minimum of effort and cost.
Maybe a composite aluminum should be used in place of carbon fibre, it would be light weight, strong, durable but wouldn't break up or splinter like carbon fibre, and would probably be cheaper to manufacture.
Even the shield would be a better concept, it just needs to be refined. Poly carbonate is very strong and is now used by V8 Supercars for all windows, the fact that Vettel didn't approve is no reason to drop the concept, he claimed it was distorting his view, this is an easy problem to solve, change the shape so the distortion is removed, as far as the claim he made that the aero distortion pushed his head/helmet forward is debatable, and even if it did, the problem is easy fixed in a wind tunnel isn't it.
IMO this problem is so easy to overcome and don't understand why the F1 powers that be can't see it too, or has Jean Todt made up his mind regardless, another crony that should of left the F1 fold with his mate Bernie.
PsychOXRat
Better than Maldonado
although the look of the "Aeroshield" (as I believe it was called correct me if I'm wrong) is better than the Halo, Vettel only drove one lap with it for one reason, it made him feel dizzy. I believe it has something to do with having a relatively thick, curved screen almost completely around you that has it's own refractive properties, this causes what the driver sees to become distorted, also another problem that I would have found interesting to see the solution of is when the screen gets covered in rubber, or during the rain, since there's no wiper on it.
I also think that, if the aeroshield had gone through, it would have progressed F1 to be more like LMP cars, since all it would need is carbon fibre around the driver with a door for it to look like an open wheeled variant - at that point I would expect an LMP class called "LMP-F1" or something similar.
These are my own opinions and speculation, so don't take it as me saying you aren't entitled to your own opinions.
Matthew Allington
Wham!ming into Spanish rocks
Apparently the Halo is causing the FIA to raise the minimum cockpit evacuation time.
Trading safety for safety, and adding ugliness into the mix. GG FIA
Trading safety for safety, and adding ugliness into the mix. GG FIA
