Technical Can we talk about the Halo?

[sobriety]

Or the halo is subject to a level of force it wasn't designed for, shears off and hits the driver in the face.

We can't say whether it would have or wouldn't have, and frankly if they never have to find out if it does or not I'll be happy.

 

[Rutherford]

Sadly not. Bianci's death was caused by his brain striking the inside of the skull causing massive trauma. The sudden deceleration is what killed Bianchi. The Halo would have done nothing to prevent that.

Didn’t the crane land on his head after crushing the air box?

It has been proven that the HALO would not have saved Bianchi, it would have been obliterated.

 

[olegg]

Or the halo is subject to a level of force it wasn't designed for, shears off and hits the driver in the face.
We can't say whether it would have or wouldn't have, and frankly if they never have to find out if it does or not I'll be happy.

They declare that HALO:
"has to withstand 125 kiloNewtons of force (equivalent to 12 tonnes in weight) from above for five seconds without a failure to any part of the survival cell or the mountings. It must also withstand forces of 125 kN from the side. Without question, it is now the strongest element on a Formula One car."

Would know where to fall, straws would spread.
And I don't know yet have to come up with different devices of the HALO type.

 

[Rutherford]

Of course it was not speed that killed Jules Bianchi, or even the G Forces suffered by the car on impact, which were measured around 60G. It was the force at which Jules Helmet was deflected by the underside of the vehicle, now revealed to be 248G.

Peter Wright, head of the security commission explains to AMuS, “This scenario could not previously have been imagined. That’s why it was very important to really investigate this accident to the smallest detail. We have never invested so much time and effort in an analysis.”

“You can not eliminate all risks… If the whole race is run behind a safety car, Bianchi would not have been hurt. We need to find an acceptable risk thus why it went in the Bianchi-investigation. Was the risk acceptable?”

Wright admits that the possibility of a car colliding with the marshals or their equipment is not acceptable.

The details emerge of the accident report in Jules Bianchi crash - thejudge13

The HALO would've done nothing for Bianchi.

 

[teabagyokel]

The report into Bianchi's accident stated that it was impossible to make that impact survivable, and the fault lay with the fact that the impact was preventable for a number of reasons.

For an incident that halo would have prevented, Felipe Massa's near-fatal accident at the Hungaroring (with the spring) may have been prevented, as would the incidents so narrowly avoided in the cases of Coulthard/Wurz, Schumacher/Liuzzi and Grosjean/Alonso of a car sideswiping the head.

 

[vintly]

Oh that is AWFUL

 

[cousinDave]

It is especially bad on the cars that have the camera lower down and on the left side. It's not quite as bad where the camera is on top of the air box.

 

[gethinceri]

Give it time, they'll put the cameras somewhere else.
If the argument against the HALO is "it obscures the audience view" the priorities are very wrong.

 

[vintly]

I'm not convinced it does anything genuinely useful. There's no guarantee that the halo would have protected Massa from the spring that hit him - another such spring could go through the gap . And since then they've modified the helmets anyway.

 

[The Pits]

If the halo affected the quality of the racing without improving, or potentially improving safety I may be encouraged to think about whether I care enough to comment. Most of the comments I see are related to aesthetics, and that some people who have never driven an F1 car believe that it may reduce visibility, something which I dont believe even the FIA would have been stupid enough to ignore.

As far as I am concerned, this is of no relevence to me personally at all.

 

[cider_and_toast]

I'm just waiting to see what happens when a car rolls over.

 

[vintly]

I find it highly relevant - F1 isn’t free to air, and my viewing pleasure is reduced. If I thought it was useful than I wouldn’t mind.

 

[Rutherford]

I don't know why we need the thing. The drivers have all signed waivers so that if something were to happen, it shouldn't be an issue. They come into the sport knowing full well that there's an increased possibility of death is always on the cards when entering a motor race.
It's simply a reactionary solution to Biachi's death.

I can't wait to see the first Moto3, Moto2 or MotoGP race with the bikes having stabilisers attached to them.

 

[racecub]

I think it looks awful. Okay, not a good enough reason for binning it, but I’m not convinced of its usefulness either. Can’t think of an accident it would have prevented. I think it’s more that the FIA felt they had to be seen to be doing something, so they rushed into this. You cant see which driver is which in a team because the helmets aren’t visible. Lewis says he may as well not bother painting his helmet and save the weight of paint. Lol.
And visibility is impaired because they’ve had to lower the starting lights so all drivers can see them with the halo.
Dunno, maybe we just don’t like change. Change certainly isn’t always for the better. Sometimes is, not always.

 

[Galahad]

From the onboard airbox camera it looks like the bar on the front of a posh pushchair. Apt, some might say.

From outside I thought someone had forgotten to cut the sprues off from a Tamiya kit. No, not a fan.

 

[rufus_mcdufus]

From the onboard airbox camera it looks like the bar on the front of a posh pushchair. Apt, some might say.

From outside I thought someone had forgotten to cut the sprues off from a Tamiya kit. No, not a fan.

"Sprue" - that's a wonderful word which I haven't heard for many years - thank you!

 

[Martin Bell]

My main issue with the Halo is that the design seems to be focused on tyres and car impacts. In F1 the two biggest accidents we've seen in the last 10 years have been the incident which led to Jules Bianchi's death and Massa at Hungary in '09.

Although the halo would have provided some protection to Bianchi in terms of protecting his head from an impact this wasnt the source of the main trauma that led to his death. One of the primary sources of trauma was the sudden deceleration which led to his brain moving around within his skull. So in that scenario, Halo wouldnt have helped.

Felipe Mass in 2009 suffered a near fatal head injury when a part came loose from Barichello's Brawn. This kicked off the track and bounced into Massa's face. Given the design of the halo i think if this were to happen again we'd be looking at a fatality or a more serious injury. With the design currently, smaller object can just as easily be deflected into the car instead of away from it.

The halo cannot be removed just because of how it looks because it is indefensible from the FIA's perspective. Driver X died because people were mean to us and called it a flip-flop. Theyd be a laughing stock. The best alternative is a jet fighter type canopy that fully protects the drivers and with better cockpit protection the less design needs to be oriented around safety; Lower noses, the airbox/roll bar can be lowered or removed, cockpit sides can be lowered. The argument F1 is an "open cockpit, open wheel" argument just isnt valid. Lots of overtaking and fast beautiful cars, that's the aim.

 

[Rutherford]

My main issue with the Halo is that the design seems to be focused on tyres and car impacts. In F1 the two biggest accidents we've seen in the last 10 years have been the incident which led to Jules Bianchi's death and Massa at Hungary in '09.

Although the halo would have provided some protection to Bianchi in terms of protecting his head from an impact this wasnt the source of the main trauma that led to his death. One of the primary sources of trauma was the sudden deceleration which led to his brain moving around within his skull. So in that scenario, Halo wouldnt have helped.

It wouldn't have helped, because the impact of the crane would have crushed the HALO easily. The impact even crushed the airbox; that tells you all about the severity of the impact.

Felipe Mass in 2009 suffered a near fatal head injury when a part came loose from Barichello's Brawn. This kicked off the track and bounced into Massa's face. Given the design of the halo i think if this were to happen again we'd be looking at a fatality or a more serious injury. With the design currently, smaller object can just as easily be deflected into the car instead of away from it.

Yep... but if something happens they can all throw their hands up in the air and say, "hey, at least we tried."

 

[F1Brits_90]

i thought this was best to carry on the discussion about the safety in F1 which has become the burning issue of the last week, 1st of all im ok with the halo now, I barely notice it during the racing & it does have a massive safety benefits

but I think FIA are maybe realising that all these tarmac run offs might be build up of these issues making it safer could have in a weird way made it more dangerous, because drivers are taking more risks pushing beyond the limits because there is no danger in outbrake or going wide because you just come back on & in trying to stop track limits they are putting huge sauage kerbs in which always had the chance of lift off. that maybe gravel is the lesser of 2 evils because firstly we would not have the track limits issues because like in Australia, Canada or Britain. if you get it wrong you get punished. all it stops car from rebounding back on to the track

 

[Bill Boddy]

Many years ago I saw a Hunter which had run out of brakes: it ran into the nylon barrier at quite a speed but stopped safely. Maybe something like this is needed.