now they need small rear view camera across the top of the halo
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/124...ubica-on-track
Printable View
now they need small rear view camera across the top of the halo
http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/124...ubica-on-track
McLaren have pulled off the ultimate sponsorship coup by bringing on board a company called Gandys , from Oz , that make flip-flop sandals .
Their logo will appear on the front of the halo , and the company has produced a Mac-orange and blue haloed edition for the F1 crowd .
This is a nice way to make a comment on this , whilst at the same time , make some good money for both Mac and Gandys .
Maybe they read my post .
When I was a kid , flip flops were also called "thongs" .
I guess , with the more modern , cheeky , swimsuit application of the word , it makes for a less savoury image for the device .
It does make me wonder where the marketting could go , though .
So , here's what Max thinks about it :
“The car never really virtually drops on top of someone else, it would always skid over the top. But because Halo was sticking out so much, of course it gets hit.
“The more you build in front of a driver, the more chance it can get hit. I think even if the Halo hadn’t been there he wouldn’t have been hit anyway so I think they made it too dramatic.”
What Max says is true , as it is out there where it can get hit .
A question comes to mind after seeing the flips that Marcus did is just how much dirt this halo device is capable of digging up into the driver's face if it slides to a stop upside down .
It could make a good shovel , which would not be good for the driver in the slightest .
It could be really deadly , and a horrible mistake , if it was to happen in the gravel .
It makes me shudder to think about it .
I'm sure it did
I think the jury is still out on the Halo. It is on the car now, so the only real question now is, is the halo potentially dangerous in certain circumstances? The Erickson accident suggest that there is room for some doubt of the claim of complete safety offered by the halo to the driver's head in the cockpit.
The Leclerc accident has happened multiple times in the past before the halo was introduced with little damage to drivers, hence it is not a compelling argument for the Halo. The only real danger that the FIA found that was a potential threat to Leclerc's safety was an endplate from Alonso's car on a trajectory to Leclerc's helmet. It was not clear how fast the endplate was travelling. Since the endplate would have dislodged at close proximity to Leclerc's cockpit area, there is also the question of how much energy was in the flying endplate. This obviously leads to the question of whether the helmet would have been able to withstand the force of the flying endplate and deflect it away. I have some doubt that the endplate would have been able to cause damage to Leclerc but l also prefer to lean in the direction of caution; better safe than sorry.
The Hulkenburg accident made it very clear that in that kind of accident, the driver would not be able to escape from the car on his own if the car were to burst into flames that engulf the cockpit area of the car.
The problem with these observations are that the same would apply for any other car mounted safety solution intended to protect the driver's head in case of an accident. So the real question therefore becomes; should the driver's head be protected or not?