2017 F1 Random Discussion Thread

siggy · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:59 am

I'm more worried that in a crash like Alonso and Kimi had last year in Austria, which happens more often then a wheel bouncing all over the place, that it will dislodge the halo and trust a piece of it into someone's head or chest.

De Cesaris fan · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:24 pm

I just can't understand the logic. The halo is the worst option in terms of looks and safety. It might be able to stop a wheel, but there are huge gaps in it for smaller debris to fly in/be deflected in. The halo would not have helped Massa, unless the spring came directly into the centre of it. The screen that Vettel was testing, would stop all small pieces of debris, unless they came in from above.

I don't understand why we had loads of work on the halo, and several tests, yet we have one attempt with the screen and it's not good enough. Work on it? Improve it? Allow the teams to incorporate it into their designs? No, choose the sodding halo. Ugh.

gd49 · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:37 pm

Coldtyre wrote:

alex1369 wrote:

Ill say this, from the first day a driver decides to do motorsport he must accept he can die. Otherwise he wouldnt race.

I think this has become a myth. I've only ever heard this in F1 documentaries produced up to the early 90s, and since then in the mouth of journalists for dramatization. Never from a driver, unless it's when they make a test drive in an older car and keep saying how it was dangerous back then. Danger and the love of risk is never brought up as a primary driver for joining motorsports, it's gotten replaced by competitiveness, challenge, wanting to become the BEST NUMBA ONE!!! etc...

When you get in a modern car on a modern circuit, death is not even at the back of your mind nowadays. Obviously, people still die, and obviously freak occurrences will occur. But just like I don't worry about the one in a million chance that a tile or a coconut falls on my head and kills me, most modern day drivers don't worry about the one in a million chance of getting killed in a race car today.

Edit: the last time F1 drivers took a start thinking that there was a tangible possibility to die in their car during the race, was Imola 1994.

Were they really thinking that in 1994? If anything hadn't F1 become relaxed about death because it'd been so long since a fatality? I'd think it was probably back in the 80s drivers would have been more concerned.

Gabriel wrote:

pending wrote:

I'm just gonna say this: Folks are gonna love IndyCar in the next few years.

Well, allegedly IndyCar has been keeping an eye on cockpit protection development by the FIA.

Maybe in a few years, we're all going to be watching some obscure indonesian series or something, the only one with real open cockpits.

I wouldn't be surprised, Wilson's death is the most recent incident the halo might have prevented, there's probably more argument for it on an oval than on F1 tracks.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

micha · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:07 pm

Prior to Imola 1994 the general idea was that F1 was so safe no driver would get killed. And they had some big accidents to back up their claim like Zanardi in Spa.

In the AMuS grapevine it says that Ferrari voted for the HALO. That would mean that Mercedes doesnt even believe in their own design.

mclaren2008 · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm

The Halo

pending · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:30 pm

gd49 wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised, Wilson's death is the most recent incident the halo might have prevented, there's probably more argument for it on an oval than on F1 tracks.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

Not quite as easy. Dixon mentioned at one point that the halo won't be an option for Indycars as it would post issue on high banked ovals like Texas or Iowa, where forward vision would be impaired.

Gaara · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:30 pm

micha wrote:

In the AMuS grapevine it says that Ferrari voted for the HALO.

The team that did one lap with the better looking screen before their driver said it was making him dizzy

alex1369 · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:50 pm

Cuz of Bianchis freak crash now F1 need halo?!
Its unfortunatley his own fault, he didnt reduce speed for yellow flags and then the tractor was in a unlucky position and he spinned off in to him..

What about then Wurz/Coulthard 2007 Australia, Alonso/Grosjean Belgium 2012, what kind of crash was that?

Its obvious in F1 you need to die so things change. But not with halo or shield, leave it as it is now.

These kind of crash happens once in 100 years, freak accident. - Bianchi crash ofcourse

What did they do after Massa crash 2009, nothing. Cuz no one ever expect something like that could happen.
Once in 100 years for something like that... they moved on. And left open cockpit, do it FIA now..

webbsy · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:09 pm

The cynical part of me can't help but feel that they are pushing this through with the veiled implications/atmosphere of this saving Jules in order to try and mask over their own incompetence and neglect in the way they handled the whole situation.

The only incident that the Halo might have...might have made any difference to was the Marcos Campos accident of 1995, and even then it probably wouldn't have saved him.

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:22 pm

De Cesaris fan wrote:

I don't understand why we had loads of work on the halo, and several tests, yet we have one attempt with the screen and it's not good enough. Work on it? Improve it? Allow the teams to incorporate it into their designs? No, choose the sodding halo. Ugh.

that's what bothers me more, they don't even want to keep it a few times more

if it was a cool headed driver like Kimi he would say after testing "bwoah it was ok" "did you feel something different, Kimi?" "I don't know"

Coldtyre · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:33 pm

gd49 wrote:

Were they really thinking that in 1994? If anything hadn't F1 become relaxed about death because it'd been so long since a fatality? I'd think it was probably back in the 80s drivers would have been more concerned.

I mean on the start line of the Grand Prix, on Sunday. You're driving the same cars, on the same track, where another driver died the day before, on a "normal" wall impact after a failure that could happen to anyone. It can never get as real as that.

iks · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:37 pm

LucasWheldon wrote:

De Cesaris fan wrote:

I don't understand why we had loads of work on the halo, and several tests, yet we have one attempt with the screen and it's not good enough. Work on it? Improve it? Allow the teams to incorporate it into their designs? No, choose the sodding halo. Ugh.

that's what bothers me more, they don't even want to keep it a few times more

if it was a cool headed driver like Kimi he would say after testing "bwoah it was ok" "did you feel something different, Kimi?" "I don't know"

Seems like they just "tested" it to say they did and the halo had already been chosen.

micha · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:01 pm

Codemasters might kinda like the HALO. For once their subpar product wont be the reason people will hate it.

siggy · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:02 pm

webbsy wrote:

The cynical part of me can't help but feel that they are pushing this through with the veiled implications/atmosphere of this saving Jules in order to try and mask over their own incompetence and neglect in the way they handled the whole situation.

The only incident that the Halo might have...might have made any difference to was the Marcos Campos accident of 1995, and even then it probably wouldn't have saved him.

Well, thank god they're installing it in lower categories as well then. Oh wait....

SFM · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:52 pm

You make the tires wider, rear and front wing and create massive downforce to make the cars look good, contrary to all years before where the FIA tried everything to make them slower, it's so dangerous. Then they actually did that, made cars that look good so it's obvious that the HALO step was needed now so that the FIA sticks to their guns. Otherwise, the cars would look good and everything would make sense.

cookie · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:23 pm

Will drivers be able to see the start lights with the halo? Surely there will be a grid slot that has the lights exactly blocked by the halo. As far as I know this has not been tested yet

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 pm

If Bernie wasn't already out of the picture, this would have all the hallmarks of his trademark 'go with the shit option until someone suggests a sensible one' tactic.

Probably waiting for Red Bull to offer their solution for free.

Fabs · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:42 pm

gkmotorsport wrote:

Probably waiting for Red Bull to offer their solution for free.

You think this could be about money?

I thought this option was Mercedes' idea, right? They have given it for free perhaps?

I'm still surprised about this decision though, makes no sense. Unless the GPDA main crybaby Grosjean had such a big voice in this.

gkmotorsport · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:31 pm

Fabs wrote:

gkmotorsport wrote:

Probably waiting for Red Bull to offer their solution for free.

You think this could be about money?

I thought this option was Mercedes' idea, right? They have given it for free perhaps?

I'm still surprised about this decision though, makes no sense. Unless the GPDA main crybaby Grosjean had such a big voice in this.

Money or (I suppose more likely) liability. Apparently the liability of Mercedes for any failure due to the halo had to be negotiated, even though they did indeed offer it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Red Bull, despite having an apparently superior design which everyone seemed to prefer, put stricter conditions on giving it to the FIA.

LucasWheldon · PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:24 pm

the moment they show the cars for 2018 Toto will show up on tv and say "this is not what we were expecting F1 to be, so we'll retire from competition next year"

TBK-Light.com

2017 F1 Random Discussion Thread

Who is online