Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

The Halo is here - reactions and developments 2018 [split topic]


  • Please log in to reply
1477 replies to this topic

#1401 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,228 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 06 December 2018 - 19:57

But what's the point? We know what happened, we all saw it! What's the point on dwelling what could've happened - it didn't. It's like doing a report saying "I could have been hit by a car while crossing the road this morning", well, yes, you could have, but you weren't, so what exactly are they attempting to get at?

"It works - case closed" has been the FIA's standpoint since day one, so yes. They've made their points about the supposed benefits of the Halo perfectly clear, do they really have to be repeated every time there's a shunt? They were hardly going to say that the Halo made no difference at the end of this report, were they?

You’ve been complaining for ages saying that there isn’t enough research to say that that the Halo will work, but now you don’t want the FIA to do an investigation to see if the Halo helped in a real world crash?

The FIA does reports like this after every big crash to reassess their safety measures. That’s how we get improvements in safety.

Edited by johnmhinds, 07 December 2018 - 00:44.


Advertisement

#1402 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 5,186 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 06 December 2018 - 19:58

Not sure that a tyre bouncing off a Halo makes a great deal of difference - the wheel/tyre is still loose and could just as easily end up in the grandstand/marshals post whether it hits a halo or not.


It will also bounce off a helmet and maybe hit a marshal or photographer, so there clearly is a difference. But a loose wheel flying around is clearly very dangerous, with or without the halo.

Edited by Ivanhoe, 06 December 2018 - 21:09.


#1403 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 7,224 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 06 December 2018 - 20:09

...However, if the tire is not damaged, it bounces further off. To where? Into marshalls, grandstands? That's what I am concerned about...

Well, as the wheel assembly hit Henry Surtees, killing him, it bounced off his helmet and went over the armco barrier and a fence in front of an area with photographers...

#1404 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,008 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 06 December 2018 - 20:35

But, with the greatest of respect, if you've followed motor racing for any length of time, you'll have seen hundreds, even thousands, of incidents where the outcome "could have been worse".

 

Crashes are a part of racing, and if it unduly bothers you that the outcome of some could have been worse, then perhaps it isn't the sport for you.

Preventing and minimising the impact of crashes is also part  and parcel of the sport. Then also perhaps ditto those not bothered .



#1405 BalanceUT

BalanceUT
  • Member

  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: February 16

Posted 06 December 2018 - 20:37

The amount of density in these threads on the halo rivals neutron stars. https://en.wikipedia...ki/Neutron_star



#1406 phrank

phrank
  • Member

  • 953 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 07 December 2018 - 09:35

Wonder how much F1/FIA is paying Autosport.com for its Halo reporting, this is hardly journalism.



#1407 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 1,918 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 07 December 2018 - 09:47

Wonder how much F1/FIA is paying Autosport.com for its Halo reporting, this is hardly journalism.


Why? I think this comment deserves explaination

Edited by Ben1445, 07 December 2018 - 09:49.


#1408 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 8,752 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 December 2018 - 09:58

One scenario that I can think of against the Halo has to do with Surtees fatal accident. Had the car a Halo, would he have survived? Depends, my guess is most likely. That partially depends on the state of the tire and there is a catch to it that concerns me. If the tire is deflated, it might still be possible that the driver gets a serious hit on the helmet due to the tire walls folding. Hit hard enough for the same to happen as it did to Surtees? Don't know. However, if the tire is not damaged, it bounces further off. To where? Into marshalls, grandstands? That's what I am concerned about. My first reaction to the Surtees fatal btw accident was. How did the tethering fail? If anything that incident should brought the focus on how to improve the tethering. That is still upsetting me that the tire tethering seemed to have failed so catastrophically. I am always of the opinion that the real issue needs to be fixed first (tethering in that case), before trying to fix the outcome (Halo). Not saying don't use Halo btw. but the technology IMO isn't as ready as it could be.

 

Back to the Halo. The Halo prevents certain kinds of scenarios. I wonder however what could be done to minimize the deflection issue, that would have happened on Surtees car with Halo? How to dissipate energy for everyone? The same issue would apply to a canopy too btw. If you saw the video of tests the FIA did and how the tire deflected, it wasn't a pretty sight. To be safe, they won't build grandstands and Marshall stands with Halos over every seat, won't they? Oh, a little detail the canopy is probably harder to solve the deflection issue.

 

And of course once a car is airborne, aero and chassis won't do their job anymore. So how does one design a car that sticks a bit more on the ground than the current ones?

 

Marshalls are usually nameless and expendable in this kind of case. They won't make a car safer for marshalls.

 

Not sure that a tyre bouncing off a Halo makes a great deal of difference - the wheel/tyre is still loose and could just as easily end up in the grandstand/marshals post whether it hits a halo or not.

 

It was one of the main reason the fighter jet canopy was rejected...



#1409 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,910 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 07 December 2018 - 10:01

Why? I think this comment deserves explaination

 

Some people can't accept that something they dislike actually works and is backed up by evidence so they must assume anything positive published on the matter is propaganda.



#1410 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 1,918 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 07 December 2018 - 10:05

Bingo

#1411 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,477 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 December 2018 - 10:31

And of course once a car is airborne, aero and chassis won't do their job anymore. So how does one design a car that sticks a bit more on the ground than the current ones?

 

Cover the wheels. Heighten the sidepods. Lower the nose. Limit the floor area.

 

You don't see many LMP cars climbing over one another. You do, however, see one make a somersault on the top of Raidillon. I guess nobody's perfect. :drunk:



#1412 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 10,433 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 07 December 2018 - 11:19

Some people can't accept that something they dislike actually works and is backed up by evidence so they must assume anything positive published on the matter is propaganda.

 

I've no doubt it actually works, but there's no doubt the FIA is running a propaganda campaign about the HALO.

 

This goes right back to sending Vettel out for one lap with the aero screen at Silverstone, guaranteeing he'd hate the concept, which was then used as justification to ram through the dreaded HALO.

 

In my opinion the risk faced by drivers in 2017 was more than acceptable in comparison to this year. 

 

So Leclerc may have been hit by the end of a wing. Gasly got a wing part to the head in a race this year and was totally fine.

 

What the FIA should have done is follow Indycar's approach and research the issue further, rather than rushing a HALO-esque monstrosity onto their cars.

 

But this is all about securing Todt's legacy than improving Formula 1.



#1413 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,477 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 December 2018 - 11:27

But this is all about securing Todt's legacy than improving Formula 1.

 

The teams and the drivers asked the FIA to improve cockpit protection.

 

Then they sat idly by as they wasted their half a billion annual budget on goofy front-wings and barge boards so complex they'd make any 3D modeller lose his sanity.

 

The FIA can't perform miracles. They're looking at solutions that can be implemented from F1 all the way down into F3. They have to be practical about it.

 

I don't like the outcome one bit, but the FIA in general, and Todt in particular (sport, F1 and safety each have separate leaders), aren't really the bad guys here.

 

Edited by Nonesuch, 07 December 2018 - 11:27.


#1414 Vielleicht

Vielleicht
  • Member

  • 2,743 posts
  • Joined: June 16

Posted 07 December 2018 - 11:33

In my opinion the risk faced by drivers in 2017 was more than acceptable in comparison to this year.

As has every level of risk every year before every advancement by at least someone.



#1415 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 1,918 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 07 December 2018 - 11:39

The thing is, the report is fine. I don't know why people are complaining about it. It literally seems to just say that in this incident the wheel probably wouldn't have hit his head and anything else about the incident is inconclusive. It then looks into other possible scenarios both with and without a Halo and predicts with evidence what that outcome would have meant. 

 

It's not proof that the Halo saved Leclerc, but that's media for you looking for clicks with headlines designed to fuel debate. We should be wise to that now and look at it sensibly, not take the bait and accuse them all of being in cahoots in some quid pro quo conspiracy.  



#1416 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 10,433 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 07 December 2018 - 12:50

As has every level of risk every year before every advancement by at least someone.

 

Is it really that greater advance? 

 

Gasly still got a wing endplate to the face this year.



#1417 Vielleicht

Vielleicht
  • Member

  • 2,743 posts
  • Joined: June 16

Posted 07 December 2018 - 13:04

Is it really that greater advance? 

 

Gasly still got a wing endplate to the face this year.

The better question is is that any reason to not have the Halo?



#1418 Garndell

Garndell
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 07 December 2018 - 13:08

Some people can't accept that something they dislike actually works and is backed up by evidence so they must assume anything positive published on the matter is propaganda.

 

What I question is the partiality of the investigations/reports, I'd like to see more outside independent investigations before I can fully trust what the FIA espouses.



#1419 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 3,721 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 07 December 2018 - 13:15

Is it really that greater advance? 
 
Gasly still got a wing endplate to the face this year.

Luckily for him it did not have the rest of a F1 car attached to it - he might well have been glad of having the Halo attached.

Advertisement

#1420 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 7,224 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 07 December 2018 - 13:26

Is it really that greater advance? 
 
Gasly still got a wing endplate to the face this year.

Was it really debris from the endplate? Whatever it was, here's a picture of Gasly holding it as he was about to throw it out of the cockpit.

ga.jpg

The onboard video can be seen at https://www.formula1...GUMKmGKYq0.html

Edited by ANF, 07 December 2018 - 13:41.


#1421 balmybaldwin

balmybaldwin
  • Member

  • 1,150 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 07 December 2018 - 14:00

What concerns me most is not the "Halo saved Leclerc" headlines being pushed around (it quite clearly helped) but more the dismissal of any issue with Hulkenburg's Abu Dhabi crash.

 

The FIA (and Hulk)were exceptionally lucky that fire didn't take hold, and they are being totally disingenuous with their conclusions that are drawn without an investigation into the crash.

 

This was always the problem with the Halo.... Anyone with half a gram of brains can see that it would help protect in certain circumstances.  The question is whether it increases the risk with roll-over accidents



#1422 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 10,433 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 07 December 2018 - 14:33

Luckily for him it did not have the rest of a F1 car attached to it - he might well have been glad of having the Halo attached.

 

But when has an F1 driver been hurt by a flying car in the past, say, 30 years?

 

As has often been said before, it wouldn't have stopped Massa being hurt.

 

All these arguments have been made before, but my central point is: the HALO is the ugliest possible solution and was rushed through as a matter of political expediency by Todt, and now we're stuck with it.

 

They should have waited and developed a better (looking) solution.



#1423 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 1,918 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 07 December 2018 - 14:47

Knew a guy who died out cycling because he thought cycling helmets were 'ugly'. 



#1424 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 8,752 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 07 December 2018 - 15:06

Cyclist also die with helmets... your point being?



#1425 Ben1445

Ben1445
  • Member

  • 1,918 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 07 December 2018 - 15:14

Cyclist also die with helmets... your point being?

Fair criticism. I got caught up in an obviously quite emotional reaction and so it's not a well made point.

 

Think it's just an event from my past that makes me think very little of using the aesthetic argument against new safety features. 



#1426 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 15:25

Don't think so. In depth investigations take time, and it's been nearly two weeks since Hulkenburg. Think you're looking for a conspiracy. 

Conspiracies>>>>data in the contemporary, post-expert world.



#1427 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 15:32

Really? And what, exactly, have they been investigating all this time? There was a first corner accident, everyone survived without injury. Surely for an investigation to be necessary, there has to be...umm...something worth investigating in the first place? Unless the FIA has now got so much time on its hands, it has decided to investigate even the smallest incident to find a shred of evidence that the Halo was a benefit?

I don't follow your logic, I'm afraid.  Part of a car that was travelling towards the head of a driver was deflected away from him by a new safety feature.  If that isn't a valid reason to research the accident thoroughly, then I'd love to know what is.  I also don't understand how the fact that the device appears to have prevented Alonso's front wing endplat from striking Leclerc's visor proves that it's unnecessary.   By that logic, every time we have an accident and a driver isn't thrown out of the car, it proves that the harness is unnecessary.



#1428 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 15:37

But, with the greatest of respect, if you've followed motor racing for any length of time, you'll have seen hundreds, even thousands, of incidents where the outcome "could have been worse".

 

Crashes are a part of racing, and if it unduly bothers you that the outcome of some could have been worse, then perhaps it isn't the sport for you.

Most of those are situations where the factor(s) that prevented serious injury or worse are chance and coincidence - had one car struck another alongside a cockpit rather than a glancing impact to the gearbox etc.  Leclerc's incident was a situation where the laws of physics show that, without the added protection, the front wing of Alonso's car would have hit his helmet. 



#1429 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 15:54

But what's the point? We know what happened, we all saw it! What's the point on dwelling what could've happened - it didn't. It's like doing a report saying "I could have been hit by a car while crossing the road this morning", well, yes, you could have, but you weren't, so what exactly are they attempting to get at?

 

"It works - case closed" has been the FIA's standpoint since day one, so yes. They've made their points about the supposed benefits of the Halo perfectly clear, do they really have to be repeated every time there's a shunt? They were hardly going to say that the Halo made no difference at the end of this report, were they?

What's the point?  Do you really want to live in a society where nobody can be arsed to learn anything from accidents unless people are killed?  Leclerc's car WAS hit by another car (that of Alonso) - it isn't fake news.  Without the improvements that have been made, Leclerc himself would have been hit by part of Alonso's car. 

 

Continuing your line of thought, the better comparison would be this - you are crossing the road when a car appears in your line of sight.  It's nearly dusk, the light is starting to fade, and the car is speeding.  You notice the headlights and run to prevent the car from hitting you.  Prior to this, a requirement for cars to have brighter headlights was introduced, and the authorities notice that your fortunate escape was one of the first examples of an incident where the brighter headlights could have made a difference, so they interview you and study the case to determine whether the changes in the law helped you avoid being hit.  To argue that such an investigation is pointless as you weren't hit, thereby proving that the duller headlights that the car that nearly hit you DIDN'T have would have been sufficient is laughable.


Edited by cpbell, 07 December 2018 - 16:21.


#1430 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 15:57

One scenario that I can think of against the Halo has to do with Surtees fatal accident. Had the car a Halo, would he have survived? Depends, my guess is most likely. That partially depends on the state of the tire and there is a catch to it that concerns me. If the tire is deflated, it might still be possible that the driver gets a serious hit on the helmet due to the tire walls folding. Hit hard enough for the same to happen as it did to Surtees? Don't know. However, if the tire is not damaged, it bounces further off. To where? Into marshalls, grandstands? That's what I am concerned about. My first reaction to the Surtees fatal btw accident was. How did the tethering fail? If anything that incident should brought the focus on how to improve the tethering. That is still upsetting me that the tire tethering seemed to have failed so catastrophically. I am always of the opinion that the real issue needs to be fixed first (tethering in that case), before trying to fix the outcome (Halo). Not saying don't use Halo btw. but the technology IMO isn't as ready as it could be.

Surtees' car was, IIRC, not equipped with tethers.



#1431 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 15:59

Not sure that a tyre bouncing off a Halo makes a great deal of difference - the wheel/tyre is still loose and could just as easily end up in the grandstand/marshals post whether it hits a halo or not.

Imola 1994 being the example - it was the incident that caused the Safety Car deployment.


Edited by cpbell, 07 December 2018 - 15:59.


#1432 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 16:03

Why? I think this comment deserves explaination

The poster to whom you've responded has previously shown themselves in this thread to be a conspiracy theorist.  The illuminati have nothing on the FIA, it would appear.



#1433 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 16:07

 

 

What the FIA should have done is follow Indycar's approach and research the issue further, rather than rushing a HALO-esque monstrosity onto their cars.

 

But this is all about securing Todt's legacy than improving Formula 1.

Translation - "the FIA should have gone through the act of investigating before scrapping the work after a year once everyone had forgotten it".



#1434 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 16:20

As has every level of risk every year before every advancement by at least someone.

I've tried making that point in this thread already.  All I got was accusations that I was a sentimental grandad (I'm 38, BTW) and comments along the lines of "preventing drivers dying in burning cars was obvious, but this isn't as it's going to ruin F1".  Of course, I explained that the same argument was made against rollbars, harnesses, full-face helmets, padded cockpits etc., but I was wasting my time as people won't accept that fans of the past thought that any driver who wanted armco in front of trees or drops was a wuss who wasn't fit to call themselves a racing driver.  'Real' drivers were men of the courage of Rosemeyer, Nuvolari, Fangio etc. who accepted the risks and didn't make a nuisance of themselves, even when fellow drivers died.  People in the late '60s hated the full-faced helmet as it was unsightly (sounds familiar) and prevented them from seeing the drivers.  Around 1961, they said roll structures were ugly; in 1996 I thought the padded cockpits were hideous but I didn't like the idea of witnessing the fatal crash on live TV or a driver I admired again, after it happened on the 1st of May 1994, so I put up with the hideous results.  Of course, by the next season, not only did the cars no longer seem hideous, but I viewed the cars of 1994 with amazement that we ever thought they were safe. 



#1435 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 16:46

What concerns me most is not the "Halo saved Leclerc" headlines being pushed around (it quite clearly helped) but more the dismissal of any issue with Hulkenburg's Abu Dhabi crash.

 

The FIA (and Hulk)were exceptionally lucky that fire didn't take hold, and they are being totally disingenuous with their conclusions that are drawn without an investigation into the crash.

 

This was always the problem with the Halo.... Anyone with half a gram of brains can see that it would help protect in certain circumstances.  The question is whether it increases the risk with roll-over accidents

Hulkenberg's fire was the type we saw on Webber's car in Korea a few years ago - an oil tank flash fire.  The FIA doesn't apply the same standards to oil tanks as they do fuel tanks in F1 for good reasons.  Firstly, oil tanks are ruptured frequently, and fires are rare (oil is vastly less flammable than fuel as fuel vapourises), and, secondly, the volume of an oil tank is minuscule compared with a 105 litre fuel tank.  In Hulkenbrg's crash, none of the structures anywhere near the fuel tank were damaged, so the chances of a fuel fire were as close to sod all as you're ever likely to get. 

 

For historical context, no fuel tank has been ruptured in a Formula 1 car since Lamy's tresting crash in 1994; no fuel fire in a race has resulted from a tank rupturing since 1989; no driver has died in a car that caught fire since the early '80s and no driver has died during a race as a direct consequence of a fire since 1973.  This has NOT happened by chance.  Tanks used to be rubber bags, housed in aluminium structures attached to the monocoque.  They were located alongside the cockpit and above the drivers' legs, and, on impact, either the bag or a fuel line could very easily be ruptured by a section of the aluminium sheet cutting into them.  By comparison, modern tanks use Kevlar-reinforced bladders with foam baffling, inside an immensely strong composite outer tank, which is located entirely behind the driver within a carbon composite survival cell that has to pass multiple stringent crash and static load tests, several of which are focused on the area of the tank.  Of course, it is still conceivable that this protection might not be sufficient at some point in the future, but the other aspect to this is that, in 1973, most marshals were untrained, wore ordinary clothes, and many posts had zero extinguishers.  If you were fortunate, one marshal every few posts might be provided with an aluminium-coated asbestos(!) suit, and that post would have 2 or 3 small extinguishers (often the sort you might have in a domestic kitchen).  Other than that, there would be a vehicle in the paddock, often provided by the regional Fire Service which would take several minutes to arrive at a fire if it happened at the far end of the track.  Fire marshalling since the 1980s has been unrecognisable in comparison, as the approach to flag, fire and rescue marshalling, not to mention medical cover, went from an amateur concept of a fun day out at the track to being a highly-regulated, trained, professional approach.  Though most marshals are unpaid, their ethos is that of a professional - they are highly-trained and very well-equipped.


Edited by cpbell, 07 December 2018 - 16:47.


#1436 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,008 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 07 December 2018 - 17:54

Cyclist also die with helmets... your point being?

The point is - Nothing is absolute. BUT  with helmet adorned, chances of serious head injury much reduced. ..Same argument with seat belts  and Halo.

 

It's a safety thing. And safety however fuggly  overides aesthetics or any such crap IMO.


Edited by Fatgadget, 07 December 2018 - 18:06.


#1437 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 2,651 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 07 December 2018 - 18:24

Whiting is full of BS, today and always.

#1438 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 3,721 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 07 December 2018 - 18:49

.
.
in 1973, most marshals were untrained, wore ordinary clothes, and many posts had zero extinguishers.  If you were fortunate, one marshal every few posts might be provided with an aluminium-coated asbestos(!) suit, and that post would have 2 or 3 small extinguishers (often the sort you might have in a domestic kitchen).  Other than that, there would be a vehicle in the paddock, often provided by the regional Fire Service which would take several minutes to arrive at a fire if it happened at the far end of the track.  Fire marshalling since the 1980s has been unrecognisable in comparison, as the approach to flag, fire and rescue marshalling, not to mention medical cover, went from an amateur concept of a fun day out at the track to being a highly-regulated, trained, professional approach.  Though most marshals are unpaid, their ethos is that of a professional - they are highly-trained and very well-equipped.

I think that should read 'If you were UNfortunate'.

Having been a regular trackside fire marshal back in those days I would suggest that that was a even worse suggested introduction than anything Charlie might be capable of dreaming up.

We had one of those at Oulton Park - we eventually managed to find one person deluded enough to allow himself to be persuaded to wear it - we kept him in the pits, as it was closer to the medical centre so that he could be more easily be given first aid if he ever had to use it in anger.

The suit weighed a ton, especially after it had been left in a leaky pit garage and had become waterlogged - would have been lethal in a fire as the occupant would probably have been 'steamed' to death if he got close enough to a fire to use an extinguisher effectively.

#1439 phrank

phrank
  • Member

  • 953 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 07 December 2018 - 19:57

Some people can't accept that something they dislike actually works and is backed up by evidence so they must assume anything positive published on the matter is propaganda.

"The findings that make halo criticism irrelevantThese kinds of clickbait headlines you normally find on questionable sites. This is not an objective journalistic approach toward the FIA findings, also during the introduction the amount of over the top pro-halo articles were remarkable.



Advertisement

#1440 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 15,910 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 07 December 2018 - 20:50

Given how positive the actual safety implications of the halo are, I’d be more concerned if they weren’t publishing pro-halo articles.

#1441 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 7,228 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 07 December 2018 - 21:09

What I question is the partiality of the investigations/reports, I'd like to see more outside independent investigations before I can fully trust what the FIA espouses.

Which outside group would you want to do an investigation then?

The FIA Institue are already the best group to do this.

Edited by johnmhinds, 07 December 2018 - 21:58.


#1442 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,008 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 07 December 2018 - 21:11

Whiting is full of BS, today and always.

Why then don't you apply for his job seeing as you know better? :rolleyes:



#1443 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,477 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 December 2018 - 21:12

"The findings that make halo criticism irrelevantThese kinds of clickbait headlines you normally find on questionable sites. This is not an objective journalistic approach toward the FIA findings, also during the introduction the amount of over the top pro-halo articles were remarkable.

 

Placing things beyond criticism is the sign of a cult, not of any profound insight.

 

The Halo is not perfect. It can be improved. It can even be replaced by something better.

 

Criticism of its flaws will be just as valid and needed in the future as it has been in the last three years.

 


#1444 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • Member

  • 5,186 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 07 December 2018 - 21:23

Cyclist also die with helmets... your point being?


I guess the point being a helmet reduces the chance of a fatal accident. Nobody said it’s impossible to have a fatal accident with the halo.

#1445 cpbell

cpbell
  • Member

  • 1,791 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 December 2018 - 21:31

I think that should read 'If you were UNfortunate'.

Having been a regular trackside fire marshal back in those days I would suggest that that was a even worse suggested introduction than anything Charlie might be capable of dreaming up.

We had one of those at Oulton Park - we eventually managed to find one person deluded enough to allow himself to be persuaded to wear it - we kept him in the pits, as it was closer to the medical centre so that he could be more easily be given first aid if he ever had to use it in anger.

The suit weighed a ton, especially after it had been left in a leaky pit garage and had become waterlogged - would have been lethal in a fire as the occupant would probably have been 'steamed' to death if he got close enough to a fire to use an extinguisher effectively.

I knew they were awful things to use, but I didn't think they were that bad!  I'm intersted in the history of British marshalling and the BMRMC - could we take this discussion to PM, please?  By the way, when I said that most marshals in the early '70s were untrained, I was referring to the international perspective.  It seems as though British marshals were some of the most professional in approach at the time.


Edited by cpbell, 07 December 2018 - 21:35.


#1446 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 5,008 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 07 December 2018 - 22:37

Given how positive the actual safety implications of the halo are, I’d be more concerned if they weren’t publishing pro-halo articles.

That will only provide ammo to the flat earth brigade!  ==>



#1447 pacificquay

pacificquay
  • Member

  • 2,696 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 08 December 2018 - 08:34

"The findings that make halo criticism irrelevantThese kinds of clickbait headlines you normally find on questionable sites. This is not an objective journalistic approach toward the FIA findings, also during the introduction the amount of over the top pro-halo articles were remarkable.


The headline you refer to is on an opinion piece, not a news story.

There is a clear difference.

#1448 Garndell

Garndell
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 08 December 2018 - 12:32

Which outside group would you want to do an investigation then?

The FIA Institue are already the best group to do this.

 

Start with NASA and some Universities/Research institutes to start off with.  You can't trust the wolf to guard the hen-house so why trust the FIA to investigate itself properly.

 

The headline you refer to is on an opinion piece, not a news story.

There is a clear difference.

 

I am sure if you showed the front page including that "headline" to the general public most wouldn't say "oh that's just an opinion piece" they would see it as news.  Also Autosport is littered with pro-halo articles (news/opinions) with very little in the way of rebuttal (except on the forum), some would say that Autosport is failing to be fair and impartial but instead are playing a part in a Pro Halo PR campaign.



#1449 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,122 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 08 December 2018 - 17:37

Start with NASA and some Universities/Research institutes to start off with.  You can't trust the wolf to guard the hen-house so why trust the FIA to investigate itself properly.

Why does the FIA need to 'investigate itself' at all?   Just because you don't like the conclusions that they reached?  I often don't agree with the stewards at races.  Should these cases be referred to the International Court of Justice? 



#1450 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,275 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 December 2018 - 19:07

Why does the FIA need to 'investigate itself' at all?   Just because you don't like the conclusions that they reached?  I often don't agree with the stewards at races.  Should these cases be referred to the International Court of Justice? 

 

I don't think "investigate itself" was a good choice of words, but the notion that it is best if there is no independent verification is bizarre