F1: Frontal Head Protection Deferred to 2018

[Will Mazeo]

That halo does seem stupid, simply becuase it gets in the way of the drivers field of view. It would be like racing with a 2 monitor setup.

To me it's more because...

And the onboard...
https://onsizzle.com/i/today-facebook-hmmmm-chamf1-2016-testing-today-with-158657

 

[Cristian Haba]

I voted yes, where before I would have said no.

However I still maintain that this is not the whole answer. You only have to look at recent F1 accidents and see how easily avoidable they are. Yes there is a risk, but Jules Bianchi would have been alive if not for that 6000lbs crane and a more speedy reaction from the martials. Further the enforcement of yellow flags due to dangerous conditions needs to be harsher from the FIA. Drivers by enlarge think they are the best in the world, as you should be in this sport it's all a bit of pissing contest if we're honest, but your life and the life of others is in danger when common sense doesn't kick in. Some of the older more experienced drivers have this, younger ones out to prove themselves need to take this lesson to heart and quick. Timing is everything, and in F1 being on point/time for action and reaction is paramount to coming out alive.

This issue keeps getting tossed around. Proper head protection as the sport gets faster/evolves is only a small part of the answer. I'd be pretty upset with Jules (RIP and no offence given), the martials, car extraction strategy of the track and other drivers too when what happened took place.

There are at least ten things that need to be done in order for the canopy to be effective imo.

 

[Riblo]

The halo is hugly but this windscreen is the better solution...

It's still open topped but the pilot head is safer...

And about the people that says bullshit like "if you dont want dangers go to play with chess" i says they are like the romans going to coliseum... you dont want to see a race... you want to see the danger and if someone dies you dont care... If F1 has only this kind of fans right now, it's better to close it anyway cause it became a joke lately...

 

[RC45]

And, to hammer the point home on how having windscreens in F1 is not an assault on tradition, here's the VAAANWAAAAALLLLLL:

I love that thing.

This windscreen in no way shape or form resembles an enclosed cockpit or halo.

What exactly is your point? F1 cars had windscreens in the 1960's and 1970's - and the 1980's.

Again, they in no way shape or form or function resemble the devices this design change and arbitrary pursuit of safety is suggesting.

The halo is hugly but this windscreen is the better solution...

It's still open topped but the pilot head is safer...

And about the people that says bullshit like "if you dont want dangers go to play with chess" i says they are like the romans going to coliseum... you dont want to see a race... you want to see the danger and if someone dies you dont care... If F1 has only this kind of fans right now, it's better to close it anyway cause it became a joke lately...

Suggesting participants accept the risk is not the same as watching people kill each other in gladiator battles.

Hyperbole much?

And this quote from Mr F1 himself regarding radio transmissions really suggests who wants F1 to be a circus rather than a motorsport - he is more concerned about "the show" than anything else:

Ecclestone also declared the lack of radio traffic was "not good for the show" when it came to the television audience.

 

[Riblo]

This windscreen in no way shape or form resembles an enclosed cockpit or halo.

What exactly is your point? F1 cars had windscreens in the 1960's and 1970's - and the 1980's.

Again, they in no way shape or form or function resemble the devices this design change and arbitrary pursuit of safety is suggesting.



Suggesting participants accept the risk is not the same as watching people kill each other in gladiator battles.

Hyperbole much?

Yes...
And so why you say that "F1 bla bla should be like that bla bla traditions bla bla danger is part of the game bla bla" thing?
You don't care about safety of the pilots cause you fear that more safety could take you away some part of the thrill of watching a GP...
This doesn't make you like the romans going to coliseum or spanish going to the arena? You know that someone could die (may be a pilot or a gladiator or a bull or a torero) and this gives you thrills and you dont want to lose that...
Tell that to the relatives of the hundreds of pilots and spetactors died to give you thrills (like the 84 died at le mans 1955)...
I will never change my opinion about that... sorry mate...

And about your thing about the old times windscreens not being really a protection... tell me why you accept that ugly wings that ruins the perfect shape of 50/60s F1 cars? And why these morons put the engine behind the pilot? real F1 cars are FR not MR... dont you think?

 

[zxcxzcxzc]

Do F1 need head protection ? HELL NO! there have to be degree of risk, especially now when most tracks are ruined.

 

[Riblo]

Do F1 need head protection ? HELL NO! there have to be degree of risk, especially now when most tracks are ruined.

Yes... there have to be degree of risk cause you are not driving a F1 car... If you were one of the pilots you would be the first asking for a windscreen after a flying piece of suspension killed Senna and almost kille Massa...

 

[RC45]

The halo is hugly but this windscreen is the better solution...

It's still open topped but the pilot head is safer...

And about the people that says bullshit like "if you dont want dangers go to play with chess" i says they are like the romans going to coliseum... you dont want to see a race... you want to see the danger and if someone dies you dont care... If F1 has only this kind of fans right now, it's better to close it anyway cause it became a joke lately...

Yes...
And so why you say that "F1 bla bla should be like that bla bla traditions bla bla danger is part of the game bla bla" thing?
You don't care about safety of the pilots cause you fear that more safety could take you away some part of the thrill of watching a GP...
This doesn't make you like the romans going to coliseum or spanish going to the arena? You know that someone could die (may be a pilot or a gladiator or a bull or a torero) and this gives you thrills and you dont want to lose that...
Tell that to the relatives of the hundreds of pilots and spetactors died to give you thrills (like the 84 died at le mans 1955)...
I will never change my opinion about that... sorry mate...

And about your thing about the old times windscreens not being really a protection... tell me why you accept that ugly wings that ruins the perfect shape of 50/60s F1 cars? And why these morons put the engine behind the pilot? real F1 cars are FR not MR... dont you think?

Lots of words and little listening. Hyperbole much.

I have never watched any event or sport hoping for death and destruction - I don't even watch UFC or boxing because of the fact I am seeing men pummel each other to a bloody pulp. Note I said I do NOT like to see these events.

On to F1 - saying a sport is a pinnacle sport with risk is NOT the same as enjoying watching people kill each other. I am not sure why you have this absurd view of the world.

Do you think motorcycles should be outlawed because people get killed every hour of everyday somewhere riding a bike?

And remember, every person that swings a leg over a bike ACCEPTS that risk and they don't even get paid millions to ride their bikes on the streets.

Your logic is both flawed and rather child-like in its innocent naïve desire to turn F1 racing into a "safe zone" - life is general is a dangerous endevour - sanitizing it to the point of bland boredom is really not a good idea.

 

[Lars Hansen]

I don't follow F1 (or motor-sports much at all), so I don't really care one way or another.
But reading through the comments, one thing seems to crop up repeatedly which has me genuinely puzzled.
It's the statement that if the cars are no longer open-cockpit, then it won't be F1 any more.
Which is something I simply can't wrap my head around.
It'll be the same car, won't it?
Yes, the canopy might add a little weight, but it'll basically have the same driving-properties, and require the same skill-level to drive well.
And if it's the same cars, and the same drivers, presumably the racing would be identical.
So why is it suddenly no longer a 'worthy' sport?

 

[Tobiman]

Personally, I derive enjoyment from what the drivers do with their cars while competing with each other not what possible danger lies ahead on the track. If I wanted that, i'd watch Isle of man TT or xtreme games.
With that said, I don't blame those who oppose this change because F1 cars don't extrude the emotions they used to just a few years back.

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

Your logic is both flawed and rather child-like in its innocent naïve desire to turn F1 racing into a "safe zone" - life is general is a dangerous endevour - sanitizing it to the point of bland boredom is really not a good idea.

How does the addition of a canopy sanitize the sport?

 

[Riblo]

How does the addition of a canopy sanitize the sport?

It remove the thrill... The danger for pilots lives... So it's not worth to watch F1 if no pilot could die anymore...
This is the flaw logic behind some people thinking and if you point out that you are a child in their eyes...
"A real man has balls of steel and drives like mad in a deadly race that i watch to have the thrill" this is way more mature yes...

 

[Deleted member 130869]

Yay! Suzuka '17 back on the dreamboard.

 

[Ben Lee]

I genuinely think its more dangerous to cycle around London than to drive about in an F1 car now.

 

[RC45]

It remove the thrill... The danger for pilots lives... So it's not worth to watch F1 if no pilot could die anymore...
This is the flaw logic behind some people thinking and if you point out that you are a child in their eyes...
"A real man has balls of steel and drives like mad in a deadly race that i watch to have the thrill" this is way more mature yes...

No - that is what you are saying - you are projecting your sick conclusion on others.

I take it you have never ridden a motorcycle on track, or an open wheel open cockpit car on track have you?

I have done both - the point is that part of the challenge of both exercises is the management and conservation of movement and effort while you are fighting the car, the physics of speed (G Forces), the wind buffeting your head (and body on the bike) and the other riders/drivers on track.

In other words, driving an open wheel open cockpit car is harder, more challenging and more dangerous than driving other classes of cars.

That is ALL part of the challenge - as you reduce the challenge you sanitize the event.

Safety is one thing, babysitting is a another. Part of the challenge and risk in an open car is that you are exposed - take away that exposure and all you have a tin-top with open wheels.

Why even bother then?

You may as well just have F1 drivers race Assetto Corsa or Gran Turismo for the title.

But my entire comment is waste because all you are going to do is project your own sick belief that other wish harm on the drivers - when in fact we just want to see the class not be diluted and sanitized to the point there would be no difference between a P1 and an F1 car, other than the FIA number board.

What would be your next step after the first driver was killed or maimed driving a halo car? Roof curtain air bags? Ejector pod? Roll cage? Doors? Slow the cars to 80km/h? Where do you draw your line, or don't you?

 

[stbreaker]

I'll never understand the argument that advancing the safety of a sport (without altering the way it actually works) somehow is a detriment. These same arguments were made when the HANS device became required and now no one even notices them anymore. I don't get the comparisons to Isle of Man TT and the like either. Yes, it's inherently more dangerous (and always will be), but that doesn't mean they aren't trying to improve the helmets, suits, course barriers, etc. in the effort to improve safety. I certainly didn't "enjoy" seeing Wilson/Massa/Hinchcliffe get hit in the head with stuff and knowing that a screen is in front of the drivers to prevent a similar occurrence certainly won't affect how I feel about being a spectator and fan.

Just as it was when Jackie Stewart and other safety pioneers moved for change, it should be up to the drivers - the people actually taking the risk. While the current crop have specific feelings on the halo and/or windscreen, most have agreed that head protection improvement would be favorable.

That being said, I was really hoping the FIA would choose the Red Bull Screen over the halo, so there is that upside I suppose. But even if the halo sticks, we will get used to it just like everything else that has changed in F1 over the years like carbon fiber becoming the material of choice, rear wings, ground effects, limitations on ground effects, sequential gear boxes, paddle shifting, lower noses, higher side bolsters, smaller engines w/ turbos... Formula 1 has always been a sport in evolution, to me that's what makes it F1, not clinging to antiquated technologies just because it's been that way for "a while."

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

What would be your next step after the first driver was killed or maimed driving a halo car? Roof curtain air bags? Ejector pod? Roll cage? Doors? Slow the cars to 80km/h? Where do you draw your line, or don't you?

Oh that's simple: You draw the line with the reduction of the car's performance. It's quite obvious no? For all these talks about more and more safety have not prevented the modern F1 car to accelerate from 0 to 100kmh in 1.5 seconds.

As for the rest of your post, I geuss that's why people prefer the halo: It still retains the open cockpit aspect of the car whilst being (hopefully) an adequate protection against things like broken suspensions penetrating someone's head, even if it does look silly.
Ultimately, I think that the death of drivers like Senna or Wilson is a far bigger detriment to the sport then any safety feature. These cars had windscreens in the past. What surprises me about these arguments is that modern F1 drivers are always considered to be less ... manly then their older counterparts, yet their older counterparts had windscreens and they didn't, and they protested for safety just as hard as their modern counterparts do now.

I mean...

... That's a windscreen. That drivers head, in that classic Ferrari 312T, is less exposed then they are in the modern F1s.

 

[Andy_J]

I mean...

... That's a windscreen. That drivers head, in that classic Ferrari 312T, is less exposed then they are in the modern F1s.

I disagree.
The little windscreens of the past were purely for the protection of wind turbulence and to force air and/or water over the helmet. Todays drivers sit much lower down and have much more protection.
The old Ferrari below with the addition of a small glass screen made of hardened glass would be sufficient in my opinion. No stupid halo.

 

[MoerasGrizzly]

The old Ferrari below with the addition of a small glass screen made of hardened glass would be sufficient in my opinion. No stupid halo.

I'd be okay with that too.

 

[P*Funk]

the more grip from the tires=better racing is complete hogwash

No, its not about saying the racing is derived from the mechanical grip per se but all race cars are designed to maximize grip and the rules enforce where that design focus goes. Heavy aero disturbs cars in ways that hinder passing. So when people say F1 should put more emphasis on mechanical grip they're saying try to preserve the spectacle and speed and triumph of engineering but with more emphasis on engineering qualities that don't harm the wheel to wheel action. This is based on the tacit fact that all F1 regulations are severely limiting the speed of cars well below what is theoretically possible making the emphasis quite material.

Also when observing the history of motorsport when series focus was/is on more mechanical grip the racing is much tighter and dynamic because there's no invisible force literally holding the natural aggressive of racing drivers back.

I'd also say this is all the more relevant given the extraordinary capabilities of modern tire technology. Imagine what Pirelli could do if given carte blanche to try and compete with aero for grip, and with better longevity to make those pesky carbon fibre punctures much rarer.

There's also the fact that F1 banning ground effect sharply limits where they can go with aero. Indy does much better with this and has much livelier passing while still being nearly as fast as modern F1. They also suffer from being much uglier sadly.