'Halo' Proves Worth in Opening Lap Crash at Spa

[Patrik Marek]

well, I think there's no doubt that halo did it's job of protecting the cockpit. that's quite obvious from the damage it took

but going as far as "it saved his life" ? ... well, nobody knows and then only way to find out would have been to have same exact crash with no halo, but that can't be done , and in a way it doesn't matter if it saved his life or didn't
I just don't really like these huge article titles, SAVED HIS life, with basically no proof and just speculations

I don't like the look of Halo, I think canopy could be better choice, but I'm glad that FIA is trying to make F1 (and others) safer

the only issue will be, if in the future there will be an accident, where Halo will actually be the reason of the death, then you have to go back to drawing board and figure out something new and better, that's how it always worked, engineers learn from their mistaktes

you can try to run 5 million simulations of "what if" but then in life, things can lead to such unfortunate series of events, and people can still die ( like the Concord crash for example )

racing is dangerous sport, and if they make the cars safer, while not limiting them too much - such as limiting top speed to be 60kph as an silly example - then it's all good for me
I like to see exciting , wheel to wheel racing, but if there is a crash, I want to know that anything and everything that could save those people lives was done and will be done

 

[JayOTT]

^That's just opinions again, unless there are some documents/contracts to verify that statement.

It's a blanket statement that covers anyone who is employed by another entity. You're not allowed to badmouth said entity without repercussions.

Some drivers have already condemned the halo, particularly during its inception .

And the keyword here is 'inception'. After these initial complaints, FIA/Public Relations would've told them to button it for their own sakes. What are the drivers supposed to do at that point?

F1 is their lifelong dream and they were forced to choose between endorsing a clearly flawed device, or potentially never driving in F1 again. Whilst I'm disappointed that they all chose the former, I can see why they made this decision.

 

[keto95]

Here you can clearly see that Alonso's front right wheel (no debris!) was heading towards Leclerc's head. The HALO prevented the impact.

https://twitter.com/alvaromartin23/status/1034027276717973509/photo/1

 

[gamer19]

but going as far as "it saved his life" ? ... well, nobody knows and then only way to find out would have been to have same exact crash with no halo, but that can't be done , and in a way it doesn't matter if it saved his life or didn't

Once again...
Does it really matter Patrik ?

I just don't really like these huge article titles, SAVED HIS life, with basically no proof and just speculations

The title of this topic is actually
'Halo' Proves Worth in Opening Lap Crash at Spa
- nowhere close to that ...sensationalism you mention.
What are you talking about Patrik ?

I expected more from you to be honest.

 

[jimortality]

What a bunch of BS you just said. Look what happened to Billy Monger last year and think again.
There's never too much safety in racing and absolutely nothing, NOTHING is above the well being of the drivers, even less your enjoyment/excitement. Couldn't care less. Crashes are f*ing scary and you only say that because you're not the one inside that cockpit. Every time there's a crash, the first thing that comes to mind is the state of the driver. No one want's to see their favorite driver being moved from the car to an ambulance and helo to the nearest hospital.

Yeah you're right, that was shocking.

 

[Paradiz]

Here you can clearly see that Alonso's front right wheel (no debris!) was heading towards Leclerc's head. The HALO prevented the impact.

https://twitter.com/alvaromartin23/status/1034027276717973509/photo/1

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=239052936758427

at 14 sec...

 

[tr1v1um]

Because it's about racing, not about you being entertained by crashes. You're watching the wrong sport.


Your post kinda contradicts itself. "There's too much safety" (talking about the halo too, and you know it), "obviously I don't want to see death, but....". Either you don't want to see death (meaning MORE safety), or you're extremely excited by crashes and want the drivers to "take the risk" (of dying, obviously).

Again, you're watching the wrong sport. Nobody should risk dying for my entertaining. That's not only extremely egoistic, it's right down schadenfreude.

Exactly, it is about racing. And for some people an important part of motorsport and racing is drivers taking risks. I don't want to watch drivers doing regular stuff - I want to see them testing the limits. I guess nobody is arguing that there need to be safety meassures, but the question is how far we go until the "sport" becomes a farce. And there is simply too much safety today, when drivers stop thinking about consequences of their mistakes - that's one of the reasons why cars flying through the air have become a frequent picture. Drivers didn't do that back in the 60s because they knew the consequences. If you listen to interviews by people like Jackie Steward - and that guy has certainly seen a few of his fellow drivers die - you will notice that they share the same opinion. Debates about safety have gone so much out of hand in F1, that the racing itself has lost priority. Today they **** their pants and drive 10 laps behind the safety car when there is the slightest sign of rain. So I rather watch a Kart race where teenagers go at it in far less safe conditions with actual rain on the track banging their wheels.

You can turn and twist it as you like, but the top Formula categories have become more and more the playgrounds for rich sissies. I have been at a side car event this year and it is clearly a different feeling watching the Birchall guys preparing their outfit for the race than watching all the current F1 drivers walking out of their comfortable motorhomes before the start of the race. It wakes a feeling of deep respect, something that I can't say about the current pile of F1 drivers with a few exceptions.

 

[Ari Antero]

Bianchi" or "A racer who died or was severely injured

Jules suffered from what is terms as a ‘diffuse axonal injury DAI ’ which is the result of extreme forces causing shear injuries in the brain. It happened when Jules’ car hit the recovery truck and decelerated from 123 km/h to 0 at a rate of 254 g. Such a rapid decelration destabilizes the position of the brain and causes shears. You could say that the shaken baby syndrome or whiplash is a minor case of DAI.

Would the halo or any other head protection have saved Jules? The answer to that would be, regrettably no. The cause of Jules’ injuries and death was the rapid deceleration of his head, mainly on impact rather than other contact with the head.

 

[RasmusP]

Jules suffered from what is terms as a ‘diffuse axonal injury DAI ’ which is the result of extreme forces causing shear injuries in the brain. It happened when Jules’ car hit the recovery truck and decelerated from 123 km/h to 0 at a rate of 254 g. Such a rapid decelration destabilizes the position of the brain and causes shears. You could say that the shaken baby syndrome or whiplash is a minor case of DAI.

Would the halo or any other head protection have saved Jules? The answer to that would be, regrettably no. The cause of Jules’ injuries and death was the rapid deceleration of his head, mainly on impact rather than other contact with the head.

It is debatable though if the halo might have been able to make the car decelerate slower and make the car dive through below. No idea at what point the high Gs happened. I'd think the nose went beneath the truck and the halo might have a better angle than helmet or air intake!
Without a proper simulation of it, there's no way to find out though.

 

[Turk]

It's probably a stretch to say it saved his life, or that the accident would have caused any injury at all, we've seen those kind of accidents for years in F1.

I certainly wouldn't like to be the guy that takes responsibility for removing the halo at this stage. Just because someone hasn't gotten fatally injured up to now doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future.

 

[Enthilzha]

Right now we are arguing whether the halo actually saved somebody's life.

At least we are are not in the position of not having it and having to argue whether it's presence would have saved somebody's life.

 

[Patrik Marek]

Once again...
Does it really matter Patrik ?

The title of this topic is actually
'Halo' Proves Worth in Opening Lap Crash at Spa
- nowhere close to that ...sensationalism you mention.
What are you talking about Patrik ?

I expected more from you to be honest.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/motor...e/news-story/447c4097e91fd3d293bdb5a7555d1b60

heh, but yeah, doens't really matter, as I said myself in the text you quoted

 

[Zieonn]

Also to help out those against the Halo here you go..

 

[Authense]

Well, then the HALO worked in protecting his health while some believe it might have also saved his life. Todays Computers will be able to simulate the impact without the HALO and they might not tell us, but it is an easy thing to do, all the telemetry data required plus the footage is at hand.

Don't know if it has been mentioned already:
We must wear seat belts because it cannot be accepted that people get killed at relatively low speed. Babys must be properly seated in a baby seat and so on.

Technical evolution also changes the ethical point of view. It is seen as unethical to allow drivers being killed as easily as they were back in the old days.

Interestingly, they are making 10 times the money while accepting a remaining 20% of the risk compared to the 60ties and 70ties. There have been many serious accidents in F1 since Senna but nobody got killed and very few were injured badly - except Jules Bianchi sliding into a deadly hazard that must not be there.

So we get all the spectacular but I really do not need to see people dying. And for the comment about the remaining risk they take, well, they take a hell lot of risk to loose their jobs by driving stupidly as cars are much better nowadays than ever before. That is why they says "sorry guys" over the radio when they loose the backend and destroy the car and not "uuups, bad luck, but at least I was going fast"

Their performance is a lot more transparent than back in the old days when there were a lot more unmeasured variables. Nowadays they tell Hamilton, buddy, you are loosing 2/10 in turn 8 while you are winning 1/10 in turn 12, try to take 8 a little more on the inside like the other driver does (which he can't even see)....

See that? Their team knows exactly when and why they are not on the edge of their possible performance....and only Kimi responds. "Stop talking, leave me alone, I know, what I am doing"

 

[VobiscumRacing]

Well, I think there is too much safety in today's racing. I don't want to see death obviously but I want crashes and smashes and to be entertained. Racing is great but I want the whole package and drivers know the risks and are rewarded handsomely. If you go fast, there are risks. Tell me when you see a crash like today, you get excited? I do!

You still did get a crash - a big one at that! The halo doesn't stop crashes, but it stops drivers getting seriously injured - or worse - so there's absolutely no reason for the halo to be ditched. Having a halo isn't going to change the number of crashes, but it'll definitely save drivers, as it almost did Leclerc. Ridiculous that people STILL think we shouldn't have the halo.

 

[Haiden773]

The adamant denial of some people regarding the halo's worth after watching the video of this accident is reaching an almost supernatural level of immature stubbornness.

The driver himself, you know...the man that was actually in the car and felt and saw everything happen, said he is now a halo convert. But for some reason, the armchair racers still think they know better???

 

[paracletus]

It's a blanket statement that covers anyone who is employed by another entity. You're not allowed to badmouth said entity without repercussions.

Indeed - a "blanket statement" based on nothing but conjecture, opinions and idle gossip.

If we need to see recent examples of halo criticism:
26/08/18, Leclerc stated that he "was never a fan of the halo..." - check criticism.
Toto Wolf stated that "he like to cut it off with a chainsaw" just a few months ago.

Haven't seen a single good reason (or even close to one) to get rid of the halo after this incident.

The halo is here to stay unless something better comes along -- if it spoils one's viewing of the sport, they'd better find something else to watch.

 

[JayOTT]

Indeed - a "blanket statement" based on nothing but conjecture, opinions and idle gossip.

The blanket objectively covers everything in this example. Allow me to repeat myself since you can't seem to grasp what I'm saying. When you sign a contract, it is a universal rule that you cannot say bad things about your employer without there being severe consequences.

That is why the drivers have to praise the Halo, even if that isn't how they feel. They are employees of F1 by proxy. No, the example you gave doesn't count because in the full context of the quote, LeClerc is praising the Halo.

About the only two drivers who could get away with dissenting are Vettel and Hamilton. Sadly for myself, the former actively sabotaged the Shield in order to give Ferrari a chassis design advantage this year, and the latter is too cagey with his PR moves to make any bold statements.

 

[mooneyman]

thx moneyman, seems i only remembered part of the story, good to find someone who knows what's what.
from what you say, anything blocking access to the helmet/head would have come in handy, wouldn't it?

I think it would also.
When you look at the evolution of the F1/Grand Prix car to the time just before HALO was introduced, about the only hangover from the early 20th century days (1900s) is the fully open cockpit.
Everything else from the bodywork ,fuel tanks ,track layout (I know that is not the car....!) has been highlighted and strictly safety modified, the open "Great War style fighter pilot" cockpit had survived.
It was bound to end.......flying debris/ cars going at 150mph are not going to be stopped by even the best helmets!
All this said I feel maybe the glory days of Grand Prix are over ,because part of the original attraction of the sport was almost gladiatorial,even a legacy of war,where people accepted danger even death as part of the spectacle/attraction.
This maybe an unpleasant thought for some but I feel it is true,but in the modern world it had to stop.....safety comes first ( and rightly so).
HALO ( driver enclosure) was going to come ...it has...and will stay...and will save lives.........the price is more sterility,less danger....thats the deal that has to be struck.

 

[paracletus]

Still have to call BS on that I'm afraid -- unless there is some documented proof that F1 drivers can not criticise anything. They can, and do, criticise plenty of things.
How about a very extreme example - Vetell "F-ing and blinding" at Charlie (FIA race director) during the Mexican GP. No consequences other than slap on wrist -- he's still a Ferrari driver with a lot of clout.

Hopefully moving on from that, obviously a halo would not have saved Jules Bianchi.
Other failings were in place that day - the crane should not have been on the track during the race. It is a tough lesson to learn, but the risks of that happening again have been greatly reduced.