TBK-Light.com

Amen to that. The heaviest thing on a wing is the ballast that is stored at the center tip of the frontwing, and it would be terribly easy to forbid that. The wings itself weigh pretty much next to nothing.

I thought that was an urban myth about the ballast, we used to put it under the seat/on the floor back in the day, but I seem to remember it being mentioned that it was a contributing factor in Wilson's death. I know we stick lead in the nose of plane's to get the COG right, but it seem absolutely insane to allow the teams to put it in the car's nose, and then they go and design this ugly thing to try and protect the driver when the easier solution is just say there's a max weight for the front wing and no lead in it, cos that thing is not going to save a driver if he submarines under another car (or tractor) at speed.

Obviously the FIA is emulating the stupid way our Country is run.

Ok well seeing as this is an F1 driven concept, lets look at who this kind of development might have saved in F1 from either injury or death.

Bianchi...no (even FIA said wouldn't have)
Coulthard...no (his close call with Wurz. strongly believe that would have actually rolled him over with the force and angle of Wurz hitting that thing)
Massa...no (spring would have missed based upon where it hit him)
Diniz...? (roll hoop was snapped off to the base)
Ratzenburger...no (raised cockpit sides would have)
Wendlinger...no (as above)
Senna...no (as above)
Lamy...no (other non head injuries)
Barichello...no (as above)
Zanardi...no (same as Lamy)
Warwick...probable (this might have prevented his car digging in)
Streiff...no (was a back injury that did him)
Pique...yes (Adelaide 1989 smash)
Donnelly...no (car totally disintegrated)
Pironi...no (feet smashed in)
Paletti...? (died of asphyxiation but don't believe suffered head injuries per say, but knocked unconscious so might have prevented)
Peterson...no (feet smashed in and complications)
Donohue...? (judging from pictures of his car it might have helped but not really sure)
Helmuth Koinigg...possibly (could have deflected the guard rail over the car)
Cervet...possibly (as above)

Yes I know it is a pointless exercise to compare car designs/builds/strenghts etc as above, but the point is that this very specific type of prevention that the FIA is trying to protect against is practically non existent in F1 when measured against the thousands upon thousands of hours that F1 cars have been racing around. Where do you draw the line on safety and then completely destroy the fabric of the sport by placing it in a half in half out category? It's either open wheel racing or closed cockpit, because I can see this half measure ending up back firing and in fact being more dangerous than either open or closed cockpit.
The drivers are already deeply submerged into their cars, we are not talking about late 80's low cockpit sides here.

Hahaha yeah, every team has a little compartment for ballast in the middle of the neutral area of the frontwing, right at the tip. You can even see the cutouts from the top where they open it.

There are just so many ways to improve safety without such a hideous clusterfuck or stupid car parks everywhere

What is wrong with 'fighter jet' kinda canopy's? They look aesthetically much prettier than this option. The Mclaren concept looked actually quite cool on that part.

Yeah it's stupid, about as stupid as the person the other week I saw try and catch a quad to stop it hitting a child, instead of pushing the child out the way and letting the quad crash into the ground.

Luckily the doctors stitched his fingers back on.

F1

How many times have I posted this the last 5 years, ugh.

Rosberg seems to think it's a good improvement though.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nico_rosberg/status/705369326648496128[/tweet]

but Rosberg is a sissy, we all agreed on that. He'd be ok with the cars packed in Styrofoam if it protected him from breaking a nail after his pedicure.

Don't forget that most older drivers called for protection, even Hamilton, Alonso and Button.....

And it seems Grosjean is the prime candidate to replace Maldonado. Brainfades are coming back!

Crashjean has found his form. The only thing we need is hasgrosjeancrashedtoday.com

will they fill the front gaps of those halos with windshields to improve aerodynamics?

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: everything is a bad taste joke now

OMG...That Halo-thing is disgusting

_________________
Visit: https://www.motorsport-pictures.com
Follow me on Instagram! http://www.instagram.com/motorsportpictures_official

This thing with Mercedes hardly running the softer tyre reminds me of the dominant Ferrari days.

No one knew their pace because they hardly did qualy runs on softer tyres, then come Melbourne they raped the field

This seems like a half arsed attempt. I don't like the looks of that at all.

I would much rather see a canopy design like this http://andriesvanoverbeeke.com/399419/6 ... ed-cockpit

That looks so cool :icame:

That's just a different looking sports car.

Test 2, Day 3:

SSN Reports:
[dailymotion]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3vohxf_barcelona-test-2-day-3-ssn-reports_sport[/dailymotion]

Paddock Uncut:
[dailymotion]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3vorvy_barcelona-test-2-day-3-paddock-uncut_sport[/dailymotion]

Ted's notebook:
[dailymotion]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3vohxg_barcelona-test-2-day-3-ted-s-notebook_sport[/dailymotion]

I know this isn't how things are generally done here, but let's think about things logically and try a few safe assumptions:

• They wouldn't introduce cockpit protection that wasn't a core part of the chassis - suggestions that this is a "clip on" and wouldn't distribute an impact to the wider chassis are ridiculous. If this is the case then this would absolutely have a benificial impact on a Bianchi-style crash. Whether it would be enough to prevent a fatal injury no one can say.
  
• Webbsy's list of crashes that wouldn't have benefited from a 'halo' is just as ridiculous. Not to mention the majority of that list are crashes that have nothing to do with cockpit protection. For the relevant ones it's impossible to say whether this structure would have improved injury unless you can produce exact measures of the height an impact was at vs the height of various parts of the halo, load of the impact vs load this structure will be able to withstand. Otherwise all you can say is that having any protective structure in front of a driver's head can only improve their chances in many of these scenarios.
  
• The problem with all the whiz-bang Fzero-style canopy mockups is the drivers will never accept them for dozens of scenarios where they would increase the danger to the driver - fires, flips, fumes in the cockpit. The halo design isn't without its own safety questions, but it objectively has less issues than a canopy (if you don't count aesthetics).

_________________

I'm overwhelmed by the lack of logic reasoning.