RaceDepartment Store

Do you ever race in VR?

  • Yes

    Votes: 174 37.2%
  • No

    Votes: 294 62.8%

Upcoming Events

AC events on Simracing.GP ACC events on Simracing.GP R3E events on Simracing.GP Weekly rFactor 2 events Join TCR Virtual today!

I've finally stopped hating the Halo. This is my story.

In this topic, I wish to explain exactly how an otherwise rational thinker was inclined to flippantly dismiss cockpit safety, as well as exactly what caused me to drop the attitude recently. I'm laying this tangled web out one last time to show that I wasn't insane or trolling, just someone who viewed certain actions in the worst possible light and formed a narrative out of it.

The Catalyst
The saga begins in 2017. The Halo had undergone preliminary testing for a good while before this, but signs were pointing to it being off the table in favour of Shield testing by mid-year. Then the Vettel Shield comment happened, and shortly afterwards, the Halo was not only back on the agenda, but forced through for 2018 despite the F1 teams voting it down 9-1.

As strange as it may seem to you now, the fan response at the time was overwhelmingly negative. I was so convinced that this would be the death of F1 that I acted like the sport no longer existed in most conversations from that point forward...

LeClerc
But the sport continued without me, and the incident may people point to as a turning point happened at Spa 2018. Alonso's front right wheel made contact with LeClerc's front Halo stem, and suddenly people couldn't praise the Halo enough.

So why didn't this work for me? Well for starters, I had stopped watching F1, because if you no longer like something, why keep watching it? This logic made me assume that others had done the same, so my mind had internalized that those left were fans who were already pro-Halo and looking for an opportunity to claim victory and superiority.

I also had plausible deniability in the form of the momentum of the front right wheel heading away from LeClerc's head before it even hit the Halo. Combined with Spa 2012 where Alonso was on the other end of a similar crash and fared okay without a Halo, it was easier for me to reaffirm my pre-existing biases than agree to any compromise with those whom I had bitter arguments with on the internet.

Grosjean
Those who weren't convinced by the LeClerc incident will probably point to this instead as the crash that vindicated the Halo's existence. The head-on collision with a railing that could just as easily have claimed his life, instead walked away from despite both the collision and the subsequent fireball.

Except I once again doubled down on my anti-Halo stance at the time, though at this point I was clutching at straws because I felt the fanbase (which at this point had recovered to it's highest point in years) were actively spiting me by pretending to have never criticized the Halo in the first place. So I had to come up with some form of counter-narrative to be able to say that those who were mean to me were wrong, and I arrived at the idea that, even if the computer reconstruction showed a guard rail being deflected by the Halo, the increase in the number of dangerous crashes in recent years was also caused by the Halo, meaning it was only protecting drivers it had already endangered.

Flimsy argument, I know, and that's why it eventually fell apart after I actually gave the recent W-Series crash an objective look...

My turning point
What I really needed all along was an example that refuted all of my arguments at once.

I can't say that the Halo helped cause the crash, as spinning off in rapidly declining conditions isn't something a little extra vision can help with. I can't say that the footage is inconclusive either, as Eaton's front left is clearly on a collision course with Moore's head until it hits the Halo. So presented with this, what do I have left? The answer is nothing, so I have to come to terms with the fact that, despite any valid complaints I might have had, I was wrong.

As an epilogue, I don't know if Verstappen's underside would've definitely tipped down into Hamilton's cockpit at Monza, but with this new outlook on the Halo, I can say that we're better off not letting fate decide in situations like that.

So what now?
There are still a couple of things troubling me. Mainly to do with how the FIA handled this back in 2017. Why did they bother to convene a vote at all if they knew the Halo had to be implemented by 2018? And why wait until after they received the predictable backlash to start presenting their evidence publicly?

Aside from that, I want to reconnect with the motorsport community, try to repair some burnt bridges, and soon enough watch my first F1 race since Singapore 2017. I'd like to be able to talk about a sport I once loved and can love again in at least a few places, even if I've burnt bridges in others.
 

Ruttman98

Premium
In this topic, I wish to explain exactly how an otherwise rational thinker was inclined to flippantly dismiss cockpit safety, as well as exactly what caused me to drop the attitude recently. I'm laying this tangled web out one last time to show that I wasn't insane or trolling, just someone who viewed certain actions in the worst possible light and formed a narrative out of it.

The Catalyst
The saga begins in 2017. The Halo had undergone preliminary testing for a good while before this, but signs were pointing to it being off the table in favour of Shield testing by mid-year. Then the Vettel Shield comment happened, and shortly afterwards, the Halo was not only back on the agenda, but forced through for 2018 despite the F1 teams voting it down 9-1.

As strange as it may seem to you now, the fan response at the time was overwhelmingly negative. I was so convinced that this would be the death of F1 that I acted like the sport no longer existed in most conversations from that point forward...

LeClerc
But the sport continued without me, and the incident may people point to as a turning point happened at Spa 2018. Alonso's front right wheel made contact with LeClerc's front Halo stem, and suddenly people couldn't praise the Halo enough.

So why didn't this work for me? Well for starters, I had stopped watching F1, because if you no longer like something, why keep watching it? This logic made me assume that others had done the same, so my mind had internalized that those left were fans who were already pro-Halo and looking for an opportunity to claim victory and superiority.

I also had plausible deniability in the form of the momentum of the front right wheel heading away from LeClerc's head before it even hit the Halo. Combined with Spa 2012 where Alonso was on the other end of a similar crash and fared okay without a Halo, it was easier for me to reaffirm my pre-existing biases than agree to any compromise with those whom I had bitter arguments with on the internet.

Grosjean
Those who weren't convinced by the LeClerc incident will probably point to this instead as the crash that vindicated the Halo's existence. The head-on collision with a railing that could just as easily have claimed his life, instead walked away from despite both the collision and the subsequent fireball.

Except I once again doubled down on my anti-Halo stance at the time, though at this point I was clutching at straws because I felt the fanbase (which at this point had recovered to it's highest point in years) were actively spiting me by pretending to have never criticized the Halo in the first place. So I had to come up with some form of counter-narrative to be able to say that those who were mean to me were wrong, and I arrived at the idea that, even if the computer reconstruction showed a guard rail being deflected by the Halo, the increase in the number of dangerous crashes in recent years was also caused by the Halo, meaning it was only protecting drivers it had already endangered.

Flimsy argument, I know, and that's why it eventually fell apart after I actually gave the recent W-Series crash an objective look...

My turning point
What I really needed all along was an example that refuted all of my arguments at once.

I can't say that the Halo helped cause the crash, as spinning off in rapidly declining conditions isn't something a little extra vision can help with. I can't say that the footage is inconclusive either, as Eaton's front left is clearly on a collision course with Moore's head until it hits the Halo. So presented with this, what do I have left? The answer is nothing, so I have to come to terms with the fact that, despite any valid complaints I might have had, I was wrong.

As an epilogue, I don't know if Verstappen's underside would've definitely tipped down into Hamilton's cockpit at Monza, but with this new outlook on the Halo, I can say that we're better off not letting fate decide in situations like that.

So what now?
There are still a couple of things troubling me. Mainly to do with how the FIA handled this back in 2017. Why did they bother to convene a vote at all if they knew the Halo had to be implemented by 2018? And why wait until after they received the predictable backlash to start presenting their evidence publicly?

Aside from that, I want to reconnect with the motorsport community, try to repair some burnt bridges, and soon enough watch my first F1 race since Singapore 2017. I'd like to be able to talk about a sport I once loved and can love again in at least a few places, even if I've burnt bridges in others.
Jay,

Thank you for the forthright telling of your opinion/reaction/change/learning.

I also thought the halo was an inelegant "solution," but barely notice it now and am getting used to the windscreen in IndyCar.

2021 has been an exciting year for F1, and the changes for 2022 should at least make things interesting.

Welcome back to the fold!
Chris
 
Overlooked this nice thread. Thanks for sharing @JayOTT
Cheers Bram. I just hope it isn't too late for me to fully integrate with the motorsport community again. I got banned from a couple of major hangouts during the height of my anti-Halo crusades and would love to share my apologies with them, but can't due to being banned. Jimmer's discord being the main one; maybe the moderators would've taken my complaints about trolls ruining my old YouTube channel seriously, had I not built such a bad reputation for myself by kicking up a stink whenever the Halo was mentioned.

(Note: GT Planet is not one of those places. They dislike me for unrelated reasons and I still feel my criticism of them is legitimate. So I guess I'm a RaceDepartment main for now despite Gran Turismo being my favourite racing franchise growing up.)
I have nothing constructive to add other than it clearly works, but still looks like crap.
In my ideal world, there would've been discussions regarding the future of open cockpit race cars as a whole. The Halo is a lot like DRS in that it solved a major problem inherent to formula car racing. But these solutions have come with great effort, effort that could've gone into foregoing tradition entirely for a prototype based solution. Tradition is just ancestral peer pressure after all, that's what my friend says.

I lament the death of LMP1-H. But on the bright side, 2022 regs should at least solve the dirty air issue, and may be as close as the sport will get to prototypes in terms of combining of speed with battle potential whilst still being open cockpit.
I also thought the halo was an inelegant "solution," but barely notice it now and am getting used to the windscreen in IndyCar.
It was a gut punch for the old me to see the final version of the Aeroscreen incorporate the Halo anyway. If only a windscreen based solution could pass the strength tests, maybe we could've had both safety and looks (Grosjean's crash proving why they need to pass said tests).
 
Last edited:

Jan Larsen

Premium
I lament the death of LMP1-H. But on the bright side, 2022 regs should at least solve the dirty air issue, and may be as close as the sport will get to prototypes in terms of combining of speed with battle potential whilst still being open cockpit.
As long as there are wings and diffusers, there'll be dirty air. And it'll always be an issue. Even the damn Caterham I drove online yesterday, a car famous for not being aero at all, still had me push wide following someone closely and ended up with me pounding the tire wall. But I'm curious about your 'still being open cockpit' line - all protos have gone closed the last few years, no? All the protos I see for 2022 have closed cockpits.

It was a gut punch for the old me to see the final version of the Aeroscreen incorporate the Halo anyway. If only a windscreen based solution could pass the strength tests, maybe we could've had both safety and looks (Grosjean's crash proving why they need to pass said tests).

Grosjeans crash would have been a Helmut Koenigg copy paste fatal crash had it not been for the Halo which is why I say it works. It did however almost prevent him from getting out, so its not without its flaws. And its still ugly.
 
Last edited:
But I'm curious about your 'still being open cockpit' line - all protos have gone closed the last few years, no? All the protos I see for 2022 have closed cockpits.
I forgot that 2000's era LMP cars were open cockpit. I should've said 'still being open wheel' to avoid confusion, as the point I was trying to make was that, whilst dirty air is still an issue, closed wheel cars can deal with it better than their open wheel aero car counterparts. So by introducing more ground effect and changing the way air washes off the car, the new F1 regulations promise to be prototype-esque racing without fully converting to a prototype formula.
 
Problems with Halo are it has a central post that creates a blind spot in front. Coming down a straight you can barley see cars at a distance. I have this problem with sim racing. I have a transparent post. Most drivers are short as they weigh less and don't rattle around much in cockpit. For this they need a step stool in garage to get in and out of a car. So if a driver had a issue and had to retire they may have to jump to clear the car. The legs and feet may be inured or strained in impact with a wall. So this is not a good idea and and can aggravate a injury sustained. I am not a fan of Indy car but they have a visor with a kind of halo. At least small debris could not get through visor that would get through the halo
 
Top