1. Forum
  2. SportNet
  3. AUTO RACING

  • Initially didn't like the halo ...

    From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Nov 30 13:49:03 2020
    .... but has certainly proved its worth. Otherwise it wouldn't have
    been just a wheel we would have seen bouncing across the track :-O

    It doesn't seem to have raised objections from drivers relating to
    visibility distractions.

    And a purely cosmetic basis it looks sleek and elegant in comparison
    with the silly little windscreens of the Indy-cars.

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Nov 29 18:50:49 2020
    On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 5:49:14 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
    .... but has certainly proved its worth. Otherwise it wouldn't have
    been just a wheel we would have seen bouncing across the track :-O

    It doesn't seem to have raised objections from drivers relating to visibility distractions.

    And a purely cosmetic basis it looks sleek and elegant in comparison
    with the silly little windscreens of the Indy-cars.

    put down the crack pipe. idiot
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From texas gate@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Nov 29 18:54:59 2020
    On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 5:49:14 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
    .... but has certainly proved its worth. Otherwise it wouldn't have
    been just a wheel we would have seen bouncing across the track :-O

    It doesn't seem to have raised objections from drivers relating to visibility distractions.

    And a purely cosmetic basis it looks sleek and elegant in comparison
    with the silly little windscreens of the Indy-cars.

    you have lost your fucking mind
    log the fuck off
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From larkim@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Nov 29 19:52:06 2020
    On Monday, 30 November 2020 at 00:49:14 UTC, geoff wrote:
    .... but has certainly proved its worth. Otherwise it wouldn't have
    been just a wheel we would have seen bouncing across the track :-O

    It doesn't seem to have raised objections from drivers relating to visibility distractions.

    And a purely cosmetic basis it looks sleek and elegant in comparison
    with the silly little windscreens of the Indy-cars.

    geoff
    Yep, undoubtedly added to his safety today and likely saved his life.

    Though having armco that you can't spear a car through the middle of
    would have helped too.

    I don't even notice the halo as an aesthetic thing now, it's just part of
    the way an F1 car looks.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From geoff@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Nov 30 22:38:22 2020
    On 30/11/2020 4:52 pm, larkim wrote:
    On Monday, 30 November 2020 at 00:49:14 UTC, geoff wrote:
    .... but has certainly proved its worth. Otherwise it wouldn't have
    been just a wheel we would have seen bouncing across the track :-O

    It doesn't seem to have raised objections from drivers relating to
    visibility distractions.

    And a purely cosmetic basis it looks sleek and elegant in comparison
    with the silly little windscreens of the Indy-cars.

    geoff
    Yep, undoubtedly added to his safety today and likely saved his life.

    Though having armco that you can't spear a car through the middle of
    would have helped too.

    I don't even notice the halo as an aesthetic thing now, it's just part of
    the way an F1 car looks.


    If he hadn't penetrated it, the impact would have been even greater - apparently 53G as it was. How much can a body take !!!

    geoff
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From larkim@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Nov 30 06:27:51 2020
    On Monday, 30 November 2020 at 09:38:28 UTC, geoff wrote:
    On 30/11/2020 4:52 pm, larkim wrote:
    On Monday, 30 November 2020 at 00:49:14 UTC, geoff wrote:
    .... but has certainly proved its worth. Otherwise it wouldn't have
    been just a wheel we would have seen bouncing across the track :-O

    It doesn't seem to have raised objections from drivers relating to
    visibility distractions.

    And a purely cosmetic basis it looks sleek and elegant in comparison
    with the silly little windscreens of the Indy-cars.

    geoff
    Yep, undoubtedly added to his safety today and likely saved his life.

    Though having armco that you can't spear a car through the middle of
    would have helped too.

    I don't even notice the halo as an aesthetic thing now, it's just part of the way an F1 car looks.

    If he hadn't penetrated it, the impact would have been even greater - apparently 53G as it was. How much can a body take !!!

    geoff
    Maybe, though maybe he could / should have been deflected too.

    The angle was more direct than usual, but it still looked like it could have had the potential to bounce back onto the circuit; it looked to me (and I
    am no forensic accident investigator!) like the front pierced the armco
    with the front right towards the barrier, then it wedged in and pivotted around, shedding the rear, so Grosjean ended up facing backwards in
    relation to the track. Or maybe as it pivoted, the rear whacked the armco
    and that's what sheared it off.

    Generally armco is intended to flex and return the car to the track isn't
    it, as it would on the middle of a motorway?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From ~misfit~@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Dec 1 13:04:33 2020
    On 1/12/2020 3:27 am, larkim wrote:
    On Monday, 30 November 2020 at 09:38:28 UTC, geoff wrote:
    On 30/11/2020 4:52 pm, larkim wrote:
    On Monday, 30 November 2020 at 00:49:14 UTC, geoff wrote:
    .... but has certainly proved its worth. Otherwise it wouldn't have
    been just a wheel we would have seen bouncing across the track :-O

    It doesn't seem to have raised objections from drivers relating to
    visibility distractions.

    And a purely cosmetic basis it looks sleek and elegant in comparison
    with the silly little windscreens of the Indy-cars.

    geoff
    Yep, undoubtedly added to his safety today and likely saved his life.

    Though having armco that you can't spear a car through the middle of
    would have helped too.

    I don't even notice the halo as an aesthetic thing now, it's just part of >>> the way an F1 car looks.

    If he hadn't penetrated it, the impact would have been even greater -
    apparently 53G as it was. How much can a body take !!!

    A 'body' can take a lot more but much more than that and the brain gets contrecoup injuries
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_contrecoup_injury> and diffuse axonal injury. That's what
    happened to Jules Bianchi. The brain is after all an unsupported gelatinous mass and doesn't
    respond well to being decelerated rapidly. Unlike jelly it has connections all through it that get
    torn and sheared...

    Maybe, though maybe he could / should have been deflected too.

    The angle was more direct than usual, but it still looked like it could have had the potential to bounce back onto the circuit; it looked to me (and I
    am no forensic accident investigator!) like the front pierced the armco
    with the front right towards the barrier, then it wedged in and pivotted around, shedding the rear, so Grosjean ended up facing backwards in
    relation to the track. Or maybe as it pivoted, the rear whacked the armco and that's what sheared it off.

    There was a post that the centre of the car hit when it pivoted which was mostly responsible for
    breaking the car in half. Otherwise you're right afaik.

    Generally armco is intended to flex and return the car to the track isn't
    it, as it would on the middle of a motorway?

    The thing is the height of F1 cars noses keeps changing. Unfortunately with this era of car the
    nose pierced between two armco strips and opened them up. That wouldn't have happened with a side
    impact or with a car that had a larger frontal area.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
    in the DSM"
    David Melville

    This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From ~misfit~@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Dec 1 14:18:27 2020
    On 1/12/2020 1:04 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
    On 1/12/2020 3:27 am, larkim wrote:
    <snipped>
    Generally armco is intended to flex and return the car to the track isn't
    it, as it would on the middle of a motorway?

    The thing is the height of F1 cars noses keeps changing. Unfortunately with this era of car the
    nose pierced between two armco strips and opened them up. That wouldn't have happened with a side
    impact or with a car that had a larger frontal area.

    I didn't state it but also if an armco strip had been exactly at nose height the car likely would
    have been deflected instead of penetrating between two strips.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
    in the DSM"
    David Melville

    This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From D Munz@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Mon Nov 30 20:02:58 2020
    On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 6:04:37 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:
    <snip>
    The thing is the height of F1 cars noses keeps changing. Unfortunately with this era of car the
    nose pierced between two armco strips and opened them up. That wouldn't have happened with a side
    impact or with a car that had a larger frontal area.
    --
    Shaun.
    This is an interesting point. I wonder when the current Armco was sourced for BIC and was it specific to the nose designs of that period. It's probably a rabbit hole but an interesting "unintended consequences" exercise around the changes that are made to the cars to address a specific safety concern.
    As I recall the noses were dropped around 2012 and again in 2014 but the specific details except me. I do know that BIC was opened for F1 in 2004. How often do they change the Armco?
    FWIW
    DLM
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Brian Lawrence@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Tue Dec 1 08:05:40 2020
    On 01/12/2020 04:02, D Munz wrote:

    On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 6:04:37 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:
    <snip>
    The thing is the height of F1 cars noses keeps changing. Unfortunately with this era of car the
    nose pierced between two armco strips and opened them up. That wouldn't have happened with a side
    impact or with a car that had a larger frontal area.
    --
    Shaun.

    This is an interesting point. I wonder when the current Armco was sourced for BIC and was it specific to the nose designs of that period. It's probably a rabbit hole but an interesting "unintended consequences" exercise around the changes that are made to the cars to address a specific safety concern.

    As I recall the noses were dropped around 2012 and again in 2014 but the specific details except me. I do know that BIC was opened for F1 in 2004. How often do they change the Armco?

    FWIW
    DLM

    The details will be in the Technical Regs., but they are not that easy
    to decipher. That said, the measurements all relate to the reference
    plane, which, I think, is the flat bottom without the plank.

    GRO's car was scraping the ground after the collision with KVY, there
    were 3 lines leading to the impact point, two from the tyres and a
    central line from the plank. So, the nose would have been closer to
    the ground than it's normal racing height.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Dec 6 09:14:46 2020
    On 2020-11-30 6:27 a.m., larkim wrote:
    On Monday, 30 November 2020 at 09:38:28 UTC, geoff wrote:
    On 30/11/2020 4:52 pm, larkim wrote:
    On Monday, 30 November 2020 at 00:49:14 UTC, geoff wrote:
    .... but has certainly proved its worth. Otherwise it wouldn't have
    been just a wheel we would have seen bouncing across the track :-O

    It doesn't seem to have raised objections from drivers relating to
    visibility distractions.

    And a purely cosmetic basis it looks sleek and elegant in comparison
    with the silly little windscreens of the Indy-cars.

    geoff
    Yep, undoubtedly added to his safety today and likely saved his life.

    Though having armco that you can't spear a car through the middle of
    would have helped too.

    I don't even notice the halo as an aesthetic thing now, it's just part of >>> the way an F1 car looks.

    If he hadn't penetrated it, the impact would have been even greater -
    apparently 53G as it was. How much can a body take !!!

    geoff
    Maybe, though maybe he could / should have been deflected too.

    The angle was more direct than usual, but it still looked like it could have had the potential to bounce back onto the circuit; it looked to me (and I
    am no forensic accident investigator!) like the front pierced the armco
    with the front right towards the barrier, then it wedged in and pivotted around, shedding the rear, so Grosjean ended up facing backwards in
    relation to the track. Or maybe as it pivoted, the rear whacked the armco and that's what sheared it off.

    Generally armco is intended to flex and return the car to the track isn't
    it, as it would on the middle of a motorway?


    I don't think armco was ever designed to return a car to the track or
    road. That really doesn't make any kind of sense in any use case. Not
    fail so that a vehicle goes over a cliff? Sure. Bounce that same vehicle
    back into traffic? How is that ever a good idea?

    And from a practical, engineering standpoint, how much momentum could
    you actually put into a stretch of armco between mounting posts before
    the steel undergoes permanent deformation and therefore must be
    absorbing the energy from the impact?
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)
  • From Alan Baker@24:150/2 to rec.autos.sport.f1 on Sun Dec 6 09:32:20 2020
    On 2020-12-01 12:05 a.m., Brian Lawrence wrote:
    On 01/12/2020 04:02, D Munz wrote:

    On Monday, November 30, 2020 at 6:04:37 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:
    <snip>
    The thing is the height of F1 cars noses keeps changing.
    Unfortunately with this era of car the
    nose pierced between two armco strips and opened them up. That
    wouldn't have happened with a side
    impact or with a car that had a larger frontal area.
    --
    Shaun.

    This is an interesting point. I wonder when the current Armco was
    sourced for BIC and was it specific to the nose designs of that
    period. It's probably a rabbit hole but an interesting "unintended
    consequences" exercise around the changes that are made to the cars to
    address a specific safety concern.

    As I recall the noses were dropped around 2012 and again in 2014 but
    the specific details except me. I do know that BIC was opened for F1
    in 2004. How often do they change the Armco?

    FWIW
    DLM

    The details will be in the Technical Regs., but they are not that easy
    to decipher. That said, the measurements all relate to the reference
    plane, which, I think, is the flat bottom without the plank.

    GRO's car was scraping the ground after the collision with KVY, there
    were 3 lines leading to the impact point, two from the tyres and a
    central line from the plank. So, the nose would have been closer to
    the ground than it's normal racing height.

    And yet the nose still ended up going between the lowest armco row and
    the next.
    --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
    * Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)