Paul Glover
I talk lots
As much I don't like the way it looks, Halo looks to have done it's job in an F2 race
Halo Confirmed for F1 2018
- Thread starter Paul Jeffrey
- Start date
Here's some video of the crash. Watch the whole thing, or start at 1:40 for an on-board view from one of the following cars. This isn't some wheel or debris hitting the car. It's another car jumping on top of his. Not the highest impact force possible, but certainly something that could seriously injure the driver.
Well, YouTube took it down, sorry. Something about Sky Sports copyright.
Well, YouTube took it down, sorry. Something about Sky Sports copyright.
Last edited:
The scuffs on the halo imply the wheel could very well have ended up in his lap. Without seeing Makino's camera we won't know for sure.
Benutzername
www.hasenkamp-motorsport.de
What is your problem with the halo?
It's a haphazard bolt on 'solution' that doesn't actually solve anything because the majority of the debris it's supposed to deflect is likely to slip through the two massive holes in it. And it makes it harder for drivers to see. And it turns sexy cars into ugly footwear. And there was a better solution in the shield but Vettel spewed illogical nonsense about it.
I know the halo is meant to save lives. And everyone thinks it's ugly despite that fact. And everyone at F1 seems to be ignoring a slightly better idea, like what Red Bull tried to do with the windscreen. Enter IndyCar, again, to find a reasonable solution. In this video, I see none of the distortion that Sebastian Vettel complained about with his windscreen test on the Ferrari.
https://www.indycar.com/Videos/2018/02/02-09-Windscreen-test-visor-cam
https://www.indycar.com/Videos/2018/02/02-09-Windscreen-test-visor-cam
Because the curvature on the Indycar windscreen is a constant angle. Where as the F1 Windscreen was not, causing the distortion. Plus Indycar screen has been designed by people who design fighter jet cockpits. The F1 design is by the same people that brought us the F14-T...
Ferrari wanted the Halo, not the screen. They did some very clever politics there. By being the first team to test the shield, they were able to get Vettel to bad mouth it from the start. He got "dizzy", which is code for "Ferrari either told me to say that, or deliberately designed it to make me dizzy so we could go with the Halo". If say Force India really wanted the Shield and tested it first, they would have spoken to people who make canopies, and made something with the correct optics to not cause dizzyness, and the first test would have been just as positive as Scott Dixon's in the Indycar.
What stops the shield at the moment though, is that the Halo is better than it. The Halo passes the relevant wheel deflection tests, and car-to-environment impacts. The shield is good with small debris, but not against large debris. Remember that small stuff merely injures drivers (Massa), whereas the large stuff killed them (Surtees, Wilson). This is why the Halo was chosen, because it actually fulfills the design brief of stopping lethal debris hitting driver's heads. Plus it is stronger against other cars, the shield would not have been as effective on Makino's car.
That's not to say the the Shield will always be that bad, the Halo looks awful, so the FIA is still researching ways of replacing it, but until we get there, we will just have to live with the fact that the Halo exists, and that is has already proved itself - therefore there is no reason to complain any more. You have two choices: Halo on cars, or dead Tadasuke Makino. It's pretty clear cut.
The Halo won't work in Indycar racing, because it will get in the way of the driver's sight on high banked ovals, where they have to look up, pretty much through the triangle. That is why Indycar is looking at the Shield. Most large Oval accidents shower the driver behind with debris (Look at the onboard from Hunter-Reay when Mike Conway disintegrated above him, it's scary af). The shield would do a good job in that regard, but it still needs research, which is why they have nothing this year.
Cockpit is an interesting new area of research for those who care, and everyone is just going to have to get used to itunfortunately.
What stops the shield at the moment though, is that the Halo is better than it. The Halo passes the relevant wheel deflection tests, and car-to-environment impacts. The shield is good with small debris, but not against large debris. Remember that small stuff merely injures drivers (Massa), whereas the large stuff killed them (Surtees, Wilson). This is why the Halo was chosen, because it actually fulfills the design brief of stopping lethal debris hitting driver's heads. Plus it is stronger against other cars, the shield would not have been as effective on Makino's car.
That's not to say the the Shield will always be that bad, the Halo looks awful, so the FIA is still researching ways of replacing it, but until we get there, we will just have to live with the fact that the Halo exists, and that is has already proved itself - therefore there is no reason to complain any more. You have two choices: Halo on cars, or dead Tadasuke Makino. It's pretty clear cut.
The Halo won't work in Indycar racing, because it will get in the way of the driver's sight on high banked ovals, where they have to look up, pretty much through the triangle. That is why Indycar is looking at the Shield. Most large Oval accidents shower the driver behind with debris (Look at the onboard from Hunter-Reay when Mike Conway disintegrated above him, it's scary af). The shield would do a good job in that regard, but it still needs research, which is why they have nothing this year.
Cockpit is an interesting new area of research for those who care, and everyone is just going to have to get used to it
Read my post above to be enlightened about it.
You're still arguing using falsehoods. I've already explained why Makino survives the crash, Halo or not. Similar crashes had been occurring all throughout history without a death. It's all propaganda and you're buying into it because the FIA are holding F1 to ransom. But no, I'm not going to let OceanFIA tell me that 2 plus 2 is 5. F1 is not worth accepting a lie as the truth.
You did however get the Ferrari aspect right. Clearly they had started work on their 2018 car with the Halo already in mind, and used Ferrari International Aid to ensure that anyone else's early designs would have to be scrapped. I ****ing hate Vettel so damn much...
Last edited:
I'll wear that title with honour here because it's justified:
1. The FIA has been told by lawyers that they will be liable for a lawsuit unless they rush in some form of head protection. The problem is, most people want the Shield, which will take time and effort to properly test.
2. The FIA tells Ferrari first that the Halo is going through, allowing them to start work on their car early. Ferrari does their bit by badmouthing the Shield and giving FIA the one vote they need to justify forcing the Halo through on safety terms.
3. The FIA then hastily cobbles together some scenarios where the Halo would be safer, ignoring all of the other scenarios where it's more dangerous. Of which there are many since vision is hindered.
4. I feel sorry for the drivers in this scenario because they're being held by the balls. Most of them probably hate having their vision hindered, but dare not speak up, because FIA will respond by giving them unfavourable treatment in races.
5. They can't exactly bail to WEC, WRC or WRX either, those are also FIA series. Which just leaves them with IndyCar, which isn't big enough yet unless it's the 500 and Alonso is competing.
Last edited:
