F1 Halo or closed c0ckpit!

[solarsailor]

Originally Posted by MatP2

F1 has had closed cockpits in the past, its nothing really new.

When was that then? I've been watching F1 for as long as I can remember and don't recall ever seeing closed cockpit cars.

[Lordy]

[QUOTE=MatP2;2520194] The reason these solutions looks so bad is that they're taped onto the top of cars not designed for them
Couldn't put it better myself you've hit the nail on the head.

I say do away with it.

F1 cars should be opened cockpits and just stick too it.
I can see there trying too improve safety as much as possible, but as you mentioned there not really designed for them.

[MatP2]

Originally Posted by solarsailor

When was that then? I've been watching F1 for as long as I can remember and don't recall ever seeing closed cockpit cars.

A very long time ago, and granted they weren't common- but they were there, and no-one kicked up a fuss. It's only an arbitrary set of regulations that prevents closed cockpits on the first place- otherwise you can guarantee all the teams would have them.

[neilb740]

As soon as a car ends up upsidedown and they cant get the driver out because of all the daft scaffolding then it will be banned.
How can it be safe to drive with restricted straight ahead vision due to a carbon fibre bar a foot in front of your nose!

[macafee2]

compare F1 to the roads of the Isle of Man TT and WRC Rallying. It's tame!

F1 abandoning races in the rain? why? Let those that are good in the rain have their time.


macafee2

[neilb740]

Sorry to drag up an old thread but a thought occurred to me over the weekend.

I was watching some historic racing on TV, old F1 cars from the 60s and 70s going round Monaco and it wasn't a parade either, they were going for it! Several crashes and spin offs. Adrian Newey was racing in a Lotus 49 and it was won by a McLaren M23 from the early 70s

If the F.I.A are so paranoid about safety first at all times then why do they sanction and promote racing in machines that are proven to be hideously dangerous!?
The Lotus 49 has the crash protection of an egg box and the McLaren isn't much better, yet this was organized by the same people trying to fit the scaffolding to modern F1 cars.

Just saying,,,bit of a double standard.

[baxlin]

Originally Posted by MatP2

A very long time ago, and granted they weren't common- but they were there, and no-one kicked up a fuss. It's only an arbitrary set of regulations that prevents closed cockpits on the first place- otherwise you can guarantee all the teams would have them.

IIRC, I think they raced under the Auto Union badge. Complete with rear wheel spats rather like on current fixed undercarriage light aircraft. I had a Dinky Toy model when I was a child.

[clf]

Originally Posted by neilb740

Sorry to drag up an old thread but a thought occurred to me over the weekend.

I was watching some historic racing on TV, old F1 cars from the 60s and 70s going round Monaco and it wasn't a parade either, they were going for it! Several crashes and spin offs. Adrian Newey was racing in a Lotus 49 and it was won by a McLaren M23 from the early 70s

If the F.I.A are so paranoid about safety first at all times then why do they sanction and promote racing in machines that are proven to be hideously dangerous!?
The Lotus 49 has the crash protection of an egg box and the McLaren isn't much better, yet this was organized by the same people trying to fit the scaffolding to modern F1 cars.

Just saying,,,bit of a double standard.

I understand your point (and agree to a point!), but they raced in a time, where, if you were lucky, the medical centre consisted of a couple of first aiders, an estate car, and maybe a nun or priest. Some drivers apparently brought their own medical people to races with them (as stated by Jackie Stewart in the 'Killer Years'). So the racing of these cars would now be statistically safer with the advance medical facilities on track. Tracks themselves have improved drastically too, but I do still accept your point.

(I would love to have a Williams FW07B - I would love to race it, although I would be more than happy to keep it as a centre piece in my living room!)

Originally Posted by baxlin

IIRC, I think they raced under the Auto Union badge. Complete with rear wheel spats rather like on current fixed undercarriage light aircraft. I had a Dinky Toy model when I was a child.

I am guessing that will be a type b or c, being an Auto Union, that would have been before the second world war, and therefore before anything that resembled rules and regulations that we know now, ie not Formula 1.




My personal feeling would be some form of polycarbonate windscreen, like a canopy with the top shaved off. It is only necessary to deflect debris.

The halo is hideous, and impractical. If you think of the blindspot created by the A pillar of our cars, the pillar of the halo surely would created some issues somewhere for visibility in an F1 car.

A full canopy I think looks fantastic, however, I wonder why it needs to be fully enclosed? Why not a a canopy with no sides, and perhaps a folding panel on each side of the cockpit that could be removed if the car was upside down?

[AndyN01]

Motorsport is dangerous.

Accidents and Collisions happen.

I've been a motorsport fan for decades.

I thought the whole point of motor racing was meant to be cutting edge, exciting, adrenaline pumping, edge of the seat stuff?

I've marshalled plenty. I've helped get a driver out from an overturned single seater. It's not easy even with a fully open cockpit and a fully conscious and basically unhurt driver.

I watched with, immense pleasure, Ayrton Senna come through Formula Ford, F3 and into F1.

A great friend of mine witnessed the late, great, Gilles Villeneuve in practise at Silverstone. He "lost it" coming out of Club corner. The first 360 was over in a flash, during the second they watched him looking around and he exited the third under full power off off up to Abbey and away under the bridge.

Genuine seat of the pants car control.

We know how the story of these two greats ended. Could any amount of "safety" kit have prevented it?

How about the recent Donington meeting where Billy Monger lost his legs?

Would F1 type technology and car build have prevented that?

Would there be any "lesser" formulae for drivers wishing to become future F1 starts or would the small outfits all be bankrupt because of the costs involved in racing car design and build?

I get all the arguments. The F1 business wants to protect their multi million £ assets - formerly known as drivers.

How about stop "tinkering" with "add ons" to try and stop this problem or that issue?

Go the whole hog and have the assets drive remotely controlled cars from the safety of a pit garage mock up? No danger of a collision causing actual injury.

The US Air Force have done it with a F16 fighter so the technology is there.

I've given up watching F1. It's just plain boring.

Give me Moto GP any day - there's actual overtaking - lots of it - from skill and race craft, not technical gizmos.

Motorsport is dangerous.

The people involved know that.

Andy

[clf]

Originally Posted by AndyN01

Motorsport is dangerous.

Accidents and Collisions happen.

I've been a motorsport fan for decades.

I thought the whole point of motor racing was meant to be cutting edge, exciting, adrenaline pumping, edge of the seat stuff?

I've marshalled plenty including the immense pleasure of watching Senna come through Formula Ford, F3 and into F1.

A great friend of mine witnessed the late, great, Gilles Villeneuve in practise at Silverstone. He "lost it" coming out of Club corner. The first 360 was over in a flash, during the second they watched him looking around and he exited the third under full power off off up to Abbey and away under the bridge.

Genuine seat of the pants car control.

We know how the story of these two greats ended. Could any amount of "safety" kit prevented it?

How about the recent Donington meeting where Billy Monger lost his legs?

Would F1 type technology and car build have prevented that?

Would there be any "lesser" formulae for drivers wishing to become future F1 starts or would the small outfits all be bankrupt because of the costs involved in car design and build?

I get all the arguments. The F1 business wants to protect their multi million £ assets - formerly known as drivers.

How about stop "tinkering" with "add ons" to try and stop this problem or that issue?

Go the whole hog and have the assets drive remotely controlled cars from the safety of a pit garage mock up? No danger of a collision causing actual injury.

The US Air Force have done it with a F16 fighter so the technology is there.

I've given up watching F1. It's just plain boring.

Give me Moto GP any day - there's actual overtaking - lots of it - from skill and race craft, not technical gizmos.

Motorsport is dangerous.

The people involved know that.

Andy

Gilles Villeneuve is still my all time favourite racer, and think back to 82 when he was killed, wooden stakes with 'chicken wire' where sand traps would be now.

Arnoux and him fighting it out in Paul Ricard literally wheel to wheel with total respect control and their own safety controlled by each other.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk