planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:27 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 861
Location: Far side of Koozebane
So we can assume the halo's will now be mandatory in the other FIA open cockpit categories from next year onward as well?

Surely it has to be. The fact that the teams will be allowed to attach aero devices to them to me cheapens the reason as to why they're being installed in the first place.

I hate the Halo but Horner is right. Once they started the trip down the rabbit hole there was no turning back and as long as it can be argued that the Halo is the best option available and it does mitigate the risk of head strike to some degree without unreasonably increasing the risk in other areas, then it was pretty much a fait accompli that it was on it's way in.

Next stop on the F1 safety train....... enclosed wheels (I actually think flips due to wheel to wheel contact is a bigger safety risk than objects entering the cockpit).

_________________
Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. That way when you do judge him, you're a mile away, and you have his shoes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
mikeyg123 wrote:
Palmer's comments that I agree with wholeheartedly.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... we-know-it


I agree too, 100%. It is so sad to see the sport I've loved for the past 30 years fade away.

Quote:
"The halo would have prevented no deaths in F1 in 23 years, but because of incidents in IndyCar [Justin Wilson] and Formula 2 [Henry Surtees], where there were different tracks, different safety measures, we're introducing something into F1 that changes the whole tradition and history of the sport.

"I'm not being disrespectful. I just think that the whole essence of single-seater racing is open-top.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Quote:
Max Verstappen: "I don't really understand why we should need it."

When asked if he felt it would take away some of the excitement of F1, he said: "I think as soon as I have that thing on my car, I don't like it.

"So the excitement is already gone before I am already sitting in the car."


Quote:
Haas driver Kevin Magnussen was more outspoken, suggesting that fans were right to be upset about the looks of the car suffering.

"When you look at the car and it is ugly, F1 cars aren't meant to be ugly," he said.

"That is the reason that a Ferrari is more exciting than a Mazda. It is something to do with passion. If it looks fairy cakes, it is fairy cakes..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:38 pm
Posts: 267
So I think there should be a Formula 1 and a 1a.

In 1a cars have, the halo, airbags (on the outside of the car), padded suits, and perhaps even driverless cars as, with safety as the focus, a car with no driver is the pinnacle of safety for the person behind the wheel (in an air conditioned trailer in the UK). If it is not yet safe enough the the track could be painted on a large empty piece of tarmac with no armco and infinite run off areas.

In formula 1 cars have reduced aero, no halo, there are no blue flags and refueling is a part of pit stops. That's the way racing should be IMHO. If a driver can't handle f1 on an emotional, physical or spiritual, or risk management level you move to 1a or better yet E.

I truly believe that F1 must carry with it an assumption of risk and, for those who can manage that risk, rewards. We can't cave in to the lowest common denominator or else we'll have speed posted limits soon. That would increase safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1231
I think this is one of those things that for some people will feel like the end of the world... Until it actually happens.

Then ultimately it's the same cars driving around the same tracks at the same speeds racing in the same way. If every car has it people will get used to it, then stop talking about it and then it will just disappear into the background.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5837
Location: Nebraska, USA
LBET wrote:
So I think there should be a Formula 1 and a 1a.

In 1a cars have, the halo, airbags (on the outside of the car), padded suits, and perhaps even driverless cars as, with safety as the focus, a car with no driver is the pinnacle of safety for the person behind the wheel (in an air conditioned trailer in the UK). If it is not yet safe enough the the track could be painted on a large empty piece of tarmac with no armco and infinite run off areas.

In formula 1 cars have reduced aero, no halo, there are no blue flags and refueling is a part of pit stops. That's the way racing should be IMHO. If a driver can't handle f1 on an emotional, physical or spiritual, or risk management level you move to 1a or better yet E.

I truly believe that F1 must carry with it an assumption of risk and, for those who can manage that risk, rewards. We can't cave in to the lowest common denominator or else we'll have speed posted limits soon. That would increase safety.


Ridiculous....

I don't like the looks of the halo either, however some of the responses by some drivers and forum members are way over the top. This is NOT the end of F1 as we know it, it is at best an evolution, and at worst an attempt to make it safer. There may very well be changes in the look or even the type of protection, but surely the FIA felt the need to act, and did so. You can bet that other open-cockpit cars will be sporting variations of the halo...or perhaps full covers. You might as well get used to it. The beautiful new INDY cars are, reportedly, designed with the idea of a covered cockpit in the future.

I find it interesting that the most vocal opponents to giving the halo a try tend to be the very young drivers, and fans whose greatest physical risk is a horse voice from yelling at their monitors from the safety of their homes. It is so easy to be brave when you have no risk.

It is going to happen, and as a poster said earlier, we will get used to it. You know that the FIA has acted what it feels is the safety of the drivers. They are not trying to destroy the nature of the sport. They are not doing this to favor one team over another, so it isn't political. Why not give it a chance?

Lastly, a message for Verstappen... the cars are already ugly...now they will just be uglier!

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Blake wrote:

Lastly, a message for Verstappen... the cars are already ugly...now they will just be uglier!


Not even close. Aside from the shark and T wing, these cars are beautiful.

Closing the cockpits and covering the wheels is infinitely safer. Do it now. Why wait? Dont Driver's Lives Matter?

Just kill off F1, all in the name of safety.

Turn it into sports car racing, all in the name of safety.

I agree 100% with Roman and the other drivers that say the Halo ruins F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5837
Location: Nebraska, USA
So if the halo ruins F1, there are going to be lot of people out of work.
;)

It is easy for us to dismiss safety as a "joke" with our monitors and hundreds of miles from the "front" between us and the dangers.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Blake wrote:
So if the halo ruins F1, there are going to be lot of people out of work.
;)

It is easy for us to dismiss safety as a "joke" with our monitors and hundreds of miles from the "front" between us and the dangers.


There are plenty of drivers who will gladly step into a haloless F1 car. No team will lack for finding drivers.

The FIA is mandating this abomination. It's coming from the top down.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5837
Location: Nebraska, USA
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Blake wrote:
So if the halo ruins F1, there are going to be lot of people out of work.
;)

It is easy for us to dismiss safety as a "joke" with our monitors and hundreds of miles from the "front" between us and the dangers.


There are plenty of drivers who will gladly step into a haloless F1 car. No team will lack for finding drivers.

The FIA is mandating this abomination. It's coming from the top down.


so what is your point? Dump any driver who thinks that the "halo" worth a try? Lets get a bunch of drivers who don't give a damn about safety, just so that they are in F1? As I suggested before, you sure are "brave" sitting in front of your computer. Some drivers have said lets give it a try if it makes the racer safer, but judging by your earlier posts you would just as soon relate them to the sidelines.

I can only imagine that you would have also been against helmets, Hahns devices, collars, rollover supports, high speed capacity tires... you can bet there were some who thought them unnecessary too... probably some even made asinine comments suggesting the "ruin" of F1 because of them. Whether tarlik likes it or not, safety aspects will continue to be part of F1 evolvement. We aren't going to like some of them, may even think that they are ugly, but it is going to happen. And over time, we get used to the safety development, and most will get used to the Halo too.... As I said before, it isn't pretty...and while you think I am wrong, it is my perogative to think that F1 cars are already ugly... they do need to do what they can to make the sport safer... if not, the FIA would be negligent in their duties, and if an accident were to happen that a Halo may have saved a life, but it were shown that FIA had such a solution and ignored it... THEN... it could be the "end" of F1, not the use of a Halo ending F1. So, I agree with you in one respect... it is the FIA mandating the halo and it is coming from the top... as it should.

Is there a better answer? Perhaps so, and over time, it will come forth for review. it is called evolution.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Blake wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Blake wrote:
So if the halo ruins F1, there are going to be lot of people out of work.
;)

It is easy for us to dismiss safety as a "joke" with our monitors and hundreds of miles from the "front" between us and the dangers.


There are plenty of drivers who will gladly step into a haloless F1 car. No team will lack for finding drivers.

The FIA is mandating this abomination. It's coming from the top down.


so what is your point? Dump any driver who thinks that the "halo" worth a try? Lets get a bunch of drivers who don't give a damn about safety, just so that they are in F1? As I suggested before, you sure are "brave" sitting in front of your computer. Some drivers have said lets give it a try if it makes the racer safer, but judging by your earlier posts you would just as soon relate them to the sidelines.


My point is that it is clear, very very clear, that there is no push for the halo from the drivers. Some would try it, but many say that it is a truly "sad day for Formula One". I am in that camp.

Blake wrote:

I can only imagine that you would have also been against helmets, Hahns devices, collars, rollover supports, high speed capacity tires... you can bet there were some who thought them unnecessary too... probably some even made asinine comments suggesting the "ruin" of F1 because of them.


An absolutely ridiculous assertion on your part that shows how bankrupt you are in logic. Had you ever had the opportunity to take a course in logic at university, you would have failed it miserably.

I am NOT against any of those safety measures because without them, the loss of life or increase in injuries would be dramatic and profound. Prior to Jules Bianchi's tragic death, Formula One went TWENTY YEARS without a fatality. How many laps of testing, practicing, qualifying, and racing occurred in those twenty years?

Formula One is safe enough. Additional safety measures are OK if they keep the sport intact. While you and others disagree, I strongly believe that F1 is an open cockpit and open wheel series.

Blake wrote:
Whether tarlik likes it or not, safety aspects will continue to be part of F1 evolvement. We aren't going to like some of them, may even think that they are ugly, but it is going to happen. And over time, we get used to the safety development, and most will get used to the Halo too.... As I said before, it isn't pretty...and while you think I am wrong, it is my perogative to think that F1 cars are already ugly... they do need to do what they can to make the sport safer... if not, the FIA would be negligent in their duties, and if an accident were to happen that a Halo may have saved a life, but it were shown that FIA had such a solution and ignored it... THEN... it could be the "end" of F1, not the use of a Halo ending F1. So, I agree with you in one respect... it is the FIA mandating the halo and it is coming from the top... as it should.

Is there a better answer? Perhaps so, and over time, it will come forth for review. it is called evolution.


Why stop at the halo? Someone will surely die in the future of F1 due to a head injury. That is certain. It's only a matter of time. Why not cover the cockpits? Why not cover the wheels? It's a simple task. The cars will be demonstrably safer.

Who cares if F1 is, in concept, destroyed? The cars WILL be much, much safer. Lives will be saved. That is a fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1231
Herb Tarlik wrote:
...
Why stop at the halo? Someone will surely die in the future of F1 due to a head injury. That is certain. It's only a matter of time. Why not cover the cockpits? Why not cover the wheels? It's a simple task. The cars will be demonstrably safer.

Who cares if F1 is, in concept, destroyed? The cars WILL be much, much safer. Lives will be saved. That is a fact.

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

Open cockpit and open wheels are a long standing rules/design choice but if that changed it would still be Formula One.

Nothing would be destroyed other than some people's deep seated, but ultimately personal, ideas of what Formula One should be like.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
wolfticket wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
...
Why stop at the halo? Someone will surely die in the future of F1 due to a head injury. That is certain. It's only a matter of time. Why not cover the cockpits? Why not cover the wheels? It's a simple task. The cars will be demonstrably safer.

Who cares if F1 is, in concept, destroyed? The cars WILL be much, much safer. Lives will be saved. That is a fact.

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

Open cockpit and open wheels are a long standing rules/design choice but if that changed it would still be Formula One.

Nothing would be destroyed other than some people's deep seated, but ultimately personal, ideas of what Formula One should be like.


Your assertion is ridiculous and absurd. Aside from a few outlier cars, decades ago, F1 cars have been open wheel and open cockpit.

I could just as well suggest that American baseball can change from pitching a hardball to instead using a 12 inch softball and claim that it would still be baseball.

That claim, just like yours, is absurd.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1231
Herb Tarlik wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
...
Why stop at the halo? Someone will surely die in the future of F1 due to a head injury. That is certain. It's only a matter of time. Why not cover the cockpits? Why not cover the wheels? It's a simple task. The cars will be demonstrably safer.

Who cares if F1 is, in concept, destroyed? The cars WILL be much, much safer. Lives will be saved. That is a fact.

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

Open cockpit and open wheels are a long standing rules/design choice but if that changed it would still be Formula One.

Nothing would be destroyed other than some people's deep seated, but ultimately personal, ideas of what Formula One should be like.


Your assertion is ridiculous and absurd. Aside from a few outlier cars, decades ago, F1 cars have been open wheel and open cockpit.

I could just as well suggest that American baseball can change from pitching a hardball to instead using a 12 inch softball and claim that it would still be baseball.

That claim, just like yours, is absurd.

Closed cockpits and closed wheels would actually have a fairly limited effect on the sport from a performance and sporting point of view. Certainly far less than the addition of wings or a multitude of other changes in the history of F1. I think your analogy is absurd.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 1406
high speed vision restriction


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
wolfticket wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
...
Why stop at the halo? Someone will surely die in the future of F1 due to a head injury. That is certain. It's only a matter of time. Why not cover the cockpits? Why not cover the wheels? It's a simple task. The cars will be demonstrably safer.

Who cares if F1 is, in concept, destroyed? The cars WILL be much, much safer. Lives will be saved. That is a fact.

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

Open cockpit and open wheels are a long standing rules/design choice but if that changed it would still be Formula One.

Nothing would be destroyed other than some people's deep seated, but ultimately personal, ideas of what Formula One should be like.


Your assertion is ridiculous and absurd. Aside from a few outlier cars, decades ago, F1 cars have been open wheel and open cockpit.

I could just as well suggest that American baseball can change from pitching a hardball to instead using a 12 inch softball and claim that it would still be baseball.

That claim, just like yours, is absurd.

Closed cockpits and closed wheels would actually have a fairly limited effect on the sport from a performance and sporting point of view. Certainly far less than the addition of wings or a multitude of other changes in the history of F1. I think your analogy is absurd.


Limited? It seems your mind and vision are limited. When open wheeled cars race closely, it requires enormous talent and bravery to take cars to their absolute limits. Seeing such a racing often causes an intense increase in pulse, respiration, and excitement for the viewer at home, not just for the driver in the car. It's incredible and closed wheel racing offers nothing like that. Cars routinely bump off each other with very little consequence except in very rare situations.

F1 cars are the most intimate form of race cars, allowing fans to see the drivers unobstructed. True, it's not as unobstructed as it used to be, but it is still miles ahead of a prototype sports car.

The idea that nothing changes for the worse for F1 to lose these attributes is ludicrous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4408
Location: Michigan, USA
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Limited? It seems your mind and vision are limited. When open wheeled cars race closely, it requires enormous talent and bravery to take cars to their absolute limits. Seeing such a racing often causes an intense increase in pulse, respiration, and excitement for the viewer at home, not just for the driver in the car. It's incredible and closed wheel racing offers nothing like that. Cars routinely bump off each other with very little consequence except in very rare situations.

F1 cars are the most intimate form of race cars, allowing fans to see the drivers unobstructed. True, it's not as unobstructed as it used to be, but it is still miles ahead of a prototype sports car.

The idea that nothing changes for the worse for F1 to lose these attributes is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, but your argument is the only one here that seems ludicrous to me. If you see fighter jets flying wing to wing, do you think about how boring it is because nothing's open?

The obsession with open cars is rooted in the past, in nostalgia, and in a romantic vision of F1 that has never been true to fact. It is not rooted in any rational thought.

wolfticket wrote:
The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

This is the truth. In the 1950s, when Formula One was born, open wheel and open cockpit were believed to be the fastest. That is the extent of the reason F1 is open.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:02 pm
Posts: 138
The funny thing is that people love the concepts like the Red Bull X1 which genuinely aren't open wheel or open cockpit, because it's aesthetically pleasing.

I really can't see this as being anything other than people unhappy that the cars won't look as nice, and that is simply not an argument to compromise on safety.

The open cockpit thing seems a bit of a red herring to me, when there isn't really anything to say F1 must be open cockpit, people react favourably to closed cockpit designs that look nice, and the Halo doesn't even enclose the cockpit anyway.

I also hate the other argument that we have to wait for an F1 driver to be killed by something the Halo would have stopped before we bring it in. Safety advances need to be proactive and shouldn't just be about waiting for catastrophes to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Exediron wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Limited? It seems your mind and vision are limited. When open wheeled cars race closely, it requires enormous talent and bravery to take cars to their absolute limits. Seeing such a racing often causes an intense increase in pulse, respiration, and excitement for the viewer at home, not just for the driver in the car. It's incredible and closed wheel racing offers nothing like that. Cars routinely bump off each other with very little consequence except in very rare situations.

F1 cars are the most intimate form of race cars, allowing fans to see the drivers unobstructed. True, it's not as unobstructed as it used to be, but it is still miles ahead of a prototype sports car.

The idea that nothing changes for the worse for F1 to lose these attributes is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, but your argument is the only one here that seems ludicrous to me. If you see fighter jets flying wing to wing, do you think about how boring it is because nothing's open?


Thank you. You demonstrate exactly my point. Jet fighters wing to wing HAVE to be perfect. Why? Because there is no margin of error. At all. The same goes for open wheel racing.

I've been to nearly a dozen IMSA races back in the '80s and '90s. Great cars, wonderful sounds, excellent drivers and teams, but the racing was nowhere near as exciting, despite there being more passes and just as much wheel-to-wheel action. Why was it less exciting? Because the margin of error in this form of racing is HUGE. Cars could literally bounce off each other and not suffer much at all. Just like NASCAR, where bumping fenders is routine.

Exediron wrote:
The obsession with open cars is rooted in the past, in nostalgia, and in a romantic vision of F1 that has never been true to fact. It is not rooted in any rational thought.


You are completely and categorically wrong. You have no data to support such a statement. Even the most casual inspection of F1 cars throughout history shows that your statement is without merit and incorrect. One could easily calculate mathematically the percentage of F1 cars that were either closed top, or closed wheels or both. If such data supported your statement, you would most certainly have included it in your post. However, the data would radically disprove your statement, and so it is left un published.

Exediron wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

This is the truth. In the 1950s, when Formula One was born, open wheel and open cockpit were believed to be the fastest. That is the extent of the reason F1 is open.


I have no comment on this. I'm not arguing that the current state of the cars is the fastest way to make a race car. I'm arguing that we are losing the traditional aspects of the racing series that I and many grew up on. The wheels could have been covered and the cockpits closed back in 1985. There's no reason why it has to happen now. There's less reason in fact because the cars are demonstrably safer than they were back in 1985.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4408
Location: Michigan, USA
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:
I'm sorry, but your argument is the only one here that seems ludicrous to me. If you see fighter jets flying wing to wing, do you think about how boring it is because nothing's open?

Thank you. You demonstrate exactly my point. Jet fighters wing to wing HAVE to be perfect. Why? Because there is no margin of error. At all. The same goes for open wheel racing.

I've been to nearly a dozen IMSA races back in the '80s and '90s. Great cars, wonderful sounds, excellent drivers and teams, but the racing was nowhere near as exciting, despite there being more passes and just as much wheel-to-wheel action. Why was it less exciting? Because the margin of error in this form of racing is HUGE. Cars could literally bounce off each other and not suffer much at all. Just like NASCAR, where bumping fenders is routine.

Your argument makes a certain sense... for open wheel racing. But we actually got onto this from open cockpit racing, where it doesn't work as well. With open wheels and closed cockpits, you'd still have no margin for error, you just wouldn't die as a result.

But I'll give you a point: I do see punishing mistakes as important for a racing series. However, since there aren't any ultra fast closed-wheel single seaters, nobody can actually say for sure that they wouldn't be subject to similar needs for precision. Ricciardo and Max's collision, for example, would still have resulted in a DNF if it had been a wheel housing instead of a wheel that penetrated RIC's car. I don't think we should assume they'd be anywhere near as resilient as tintops just because they had enclosed wheels.

Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:
The obsession with open cars is rooted in the past, in nostalgia, and in a romantic vision of F1 that has never been true to fact. It is not rooted in any rational thought.

You are completely and categorically wrong. You have no data to support such a statement. Even the most casual inspection of F1 cars throughout history shows that your statement is without merit and incorrect. One could easily calculate mathematically the percentage of F1 cars that were either closed top, or closed wheels or both. If such data supported your statement, you would most certainly have included it in your post. However, the data would radically disprove your statement, and so it is left un published.

What the heck does data have to do with it?

The most casual inspection of F1 cars will certainly reveal that they've almost all been open. But that has nothing to do with my argument, which was that people only want open cars because they're attached to the past. If anything, it strengthens it. You have no data to suggest a closed-wheeled single seater like the RBR or McLaren concept wouldn't produce good racing, because there's never been one.

Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:
wolfticket wrote:
The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

This is the truth. In the 1950s, when Formula One was born, open wheel and open cockpit were believed to be the fastest. That is the extent of the reason F1 is open.

I have no comment on this. I'm not arguing that the current state of the cars is the fastest way to make a race car. I'm arguing that we are losing the traditional aspects of the racing series that I and many grew up on. The wheels could have been covered and the cockpits closed back in 1985. There's no reason why it has to happen now. There's less reason in fact because the cars are demonstrably safer than they were back in 1985.

It's a traditional aspect that doesn't matter to me, but I do accept that it matters to some people. I am baffled as to why, however. I honestly haven't seen a good argument for open cockpits that doesn't lean on history for the sake of history.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5837
Location: Nebraska, USA
Actually, two of the most beautiful race cars I have ever seen were built in the '50s...and raced in F1 !!!
While they were open cockpit, the were not necessarily open wheel cars... they look pretty good to me!

Image

Image

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9680
Location: Ireland
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Blake wrote:

Lastly, a message for Verstappen... the cars are already ugly...now they will just be uglier!


Not even close. Aside from the shark and T wing, these cars are beautiful.

You forgot the front wing on your list

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Blake wrote:
Actually, two of the most beautiful race cars I have ever seen were built in the '50s...and raced in F1 !!!
While they were open cockpit, the were not necessarily open wheel cars... they look pretty good to me!

Image

Image


The Mercedes was indeed a beautiful car.

A few questions: Why did that concept not catch on? Do FIA rules prohibit a team from building a car like that now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Exediron wrote:

It's a traditional aspect that doesn't matter to me, but I do accept that it matters to some people. I am baffled as to why, however. I honestly haven't seen a good argument for open cockpits that doesn't lean on history for the sake of history.


Think of it this way. It may help.

Many cities struggle with preserving old buildings. Typically an older building is demolished to make way for something new, that is better in many respects.

In Chicago, there was a building called the McCarthy building. It was built in the 1880's and was the last surviving building from that time and unique in it's architectural style. Even though the building had landmark status, developers were able to use the court system and get that removed. It was then torn down and a new skyscraper was built there.

Chicago lost part of its history with that move and many people felt that loss. The same occurred when the old Federal Building was demolished as well as the Chicago Stock Exchange building.

People enjoy their culture, what made them and their society as the way it is. While progress is inevitable and desirable in most cases, some control should be maintained. Some limits should be set.

I had no problems with engines going from front to back, the appearance of wings, sponsors, HANS, etc.

Given a 20 year run without a fatality, I draw the line at closing the cockpits and covering the wheels. If drivers were dying at an even moderately accelerated rate, I would not object to this move. But Formula One is as safe as many regular jobs. I worked for a major oil company for 4 years and many many people died each year in the oil extraction business. That's real dangerous work. Not one month went buy without one or more fatalities.

This is all my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2236
Merc test driver George Russell apparently said the Halo acts as a nice sun visor and IMPROVES visibility. But, he concedes that he's still not sure about being able to see the start lights.

Surely, somewhere along the grid someone is not going to be able to see the lights, shouldn't they test this BEFORE introducing the Halo.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2248
ALESI wrote:
Merc test driver George Russell apparently said the Halo acts as a nice sun visor and IMPROVES visibility. But, he concedes that he's still not sure about being able to see the start lights.

Surely, somewhere along the grid someone is not going to be able to see the lights, shouldn't they test this BEFORE introducing the Halo.


That would be common sense :lol:

_________________
Podiums: 1st Spain 2016, 2nd Germany 2016 and 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3010
F1_Ernie wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Merc test driver George Russell apparently said the Halo acts as a nice sun visor and IMPROVES visibility. But, he concedes that he's still not sure about being able to see the start lights.

Surely, somewhere along the grid someone is not going to be able to see the lights, shouldn't they test this BEFORE introducing the Halo.


That would be common sense :lol:

They have several sets of lights along the start grid, and it will be relatively straightforwards to move them so the angle is not compromised by the halo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8715
Thoughts on this Mercedes newer Halo design used this weekend? A slight improvement for me. Its not as big and seems a bit more like the concept art Mercedes released a few years back. I hope it continues to develop this way and would like to see them spray it in the cars colours to see how that looks. If they can continue to refine it, it shouldn't be too bad by the 4th or 5th development. If they could half the thickness of the struts it could be bearable.

Image
motorsportstalk.files.wordpress.com

Same angle of the older version on the Ferrari -

Image
d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net

Original halo on Mercedes last year
Image
e2.365dm.com

Original concept artwork by Mercedes -

Image

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 248
Video explaining the FIA's working. Very interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9wafkT ... ploademail


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3010
lamo wrote:
Thoughts on this Mercedes newer Halo design used this weekend?

To be honest, the more I see photographs of it, the more I get "used" to seeing it, or rather, not notice it is there. I think the biggest issue with the halo is it is such a big visual change, and a few races into 2018 people will have forgotten they are there.

I don't really notice the T wings anymore, yet they stuck out like a sore thumb at the start of the season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:06 pm
Posts: 205
jiminwatford wrote:
Video explaining the FIA's working. Very interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9wafkT ... ploademail


Thanks for posting, very interesting indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4506
jiminwatford wrote:
Video explaining the FIA's working. Very interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9wafkT ... ploademail

Excellent video. States the case quite well and even answers the "what about upside down and on fire" question.

Having a mini-Jaws of Life device in the medical car is a great solution to potential deformed Halo problems.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group