Personally I was a very very reluctant supporter of the halo brought in this year, I thought it spoilt the looks and ethos of open cockpit single seaters but if it stopped another incident like the Jules Bianchi tradegy I had to begrudgingly support it then after the Belgium GP who can argue against it? Who knows how C Leclerc would have fared without it, we’ll obviously never know but looking at all angles I think he would have been hurt definitely. Horrible looking frame but certainly does it job.
F1 Halo proven
- Thread starter john-e89
- Start date
I'm not convinced it would have hit his head - if you look at the top of the halo the mini aerofoil is undamaged, which means it was a glancing impact away from his head. The air intake behind probably did more to deflect the impact than the halo. Still not convinced the halo answers any meaningful safety question.
1066 Country
North West Surrey
I thought the halo looked cr*p, but after the Spa GP it made sense to have it. These days we don't expect F1 drivers to be dicing with death every time they race.
Which is what makes the IOM a whole different ball-game, because those riders really are doing just that every time they ride the course.
A rider died at the TT, and another at the Classic - those guys must have the biggest appendages in motorsport!
That's why I have the utmost respect for Peter Hickman - fastest man around the TT circuit ever.
Which is what makes the IOM a whole different ball-game, because those riders really are doing just that every time they ride the course.
A rider died at the TT, and another at the Classic - those guys must have the biggest appendages in motorsport!
That's why I have the utmost respect for Peter Hickman - fastest man around the TT circuit ever.
john-e89 said:
Except it wouldn't have stopped Jules Bianchi from dieing, so it's pointless using that as an argument for it. He died due to the sudden deceleration, not a hit to the head, according to the professionals.
I don't mind it anymore. Yes it looks terrible, but who really cares? F1 has become so boring, so it makes sense to add more boring and ugly stuff to the cars.
ben g said:
The point I’m making about the halo in Bianchi’s accident is that his helmet hit the counter weight, it didn’t rupture as it was a glancing blow, on the crane meaning the counter weight was low, therefore the halo would have taken the hit first along its side. As it’s curved in design who’s to say it wouldn’t have deflected the car enough to avoid it getting suddenly wedged by the air box and roll over hoop enough so that the car hit the absorbing barriers instead so taking the inertia out of the impact and preventing the sudden stop injury.
Nobody will ever know obviously but it’s hardly ‘pointless’, this accident was one of the main reasons, amongst others, why the halo was designed in the first place.
Interesting that max verstappens view of the leclerc accident is that his head was never in danger and the halo made no difference. Yes the halo was impacted, but his head wasn't in the impact area, so in his view, the halo wasn't a contributing factor to the outcome.
RickRob said:
+1 although I'm assuming that its placed in such a way as to sit between the focus point of the eyes (in line with your nose) effectively becoming peripheral (try it hold your hand in front of you and focus at something 20+ meters away) and when turning corners its out of the picture all together tbh its not all that common for an F1 driver to need to look straight ahead for any real length of time anyway.
How about... we let the drivers decide if they want to run a halo or not? Lets see how many non supporters would actually run without one, given the choice?