Join Grace and me as we do this podcast for a second time due to a recording malfunction and completely prove that you can’t bottle lightning in the same spot twice. We talk about silly season, McLaren and SAFETY!  What!!?? Are you against SAFETY??!!

Fashion Award winner:

BTR Player:

An F1 fan since 1972, NC has spent over 25 years in the technology industry focusing on technology integration, AV systems integration, digital media strategies, technology planning, consulting, speaking, presenting, sales, content strategy, marketing and brand building.
  • Srikanth

    Just heard the podcast and I fully agree with both Todd and Grace about the Halo being nothing more than a political move by FiA and Jean Todt.

    I would really like to know what sort of assessment was done to conclude that the Halo provided better safety.

    For example:
    -How much impact does it have on the view of the driver and how could that affect potential collisions that could occur?
    -Given that 9 out of the 10 teams were against the halo what were their reservations regarding it?
    -What is the probability of debris deflecting off the Halo and injuring the driver instead.
    -What happens if the halo is deformed by an incident. How easy or difficult is it to get out of the car?
    -I have just read an article that indicates that the FIA plans to increase the evacuation time limit. So essentially while FIA keeps trying to pretend that they want to improve safety they are actually endangering the lives of drivers more since the device they propose perhaps obstructs easier evacuation.

    Clearly this was not well thought out and hence there is no reason to implement this. I just hope for the sake of drivers we have an incident free year next season. But FIA is trying hard to make things worse.

    • Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was clearly thought out but the issue is, we just don’t know that it was. The official statement doesn’t explain it nor is there any documents that fans can read to understand their research and justification.

      • Salvu Borg

        I have posted on here all or most of the testing and research that have been done of which includes videos of actual tests, also the loadings that the HALO has been subjected too (specifications), the FIA will raise time limit for mandatory cockpit evacuation from 5 seconds to 8-10 seconds. people underestimated the length of time and effort the FIA been doing research into head protection, the FIA is imposing the most advanced concept, it’s not perfect, but “WE” want open cockpits. the HALO that will be used will be “HALO 4” who builds the HALO is not yet decided, but the teams will not. be assured that all concerned on the grid have all they need to know (documents/research and what not).

        • Salvu Borg

          The FIA just provided more information about the strength and quality of HALO.
          It was tested in 17 situations, including 8 car-to-car contact scenarios in which it protected the driver 7 times.
          In environmental collisions of which 6 tests were successful.
          In 2 collisions with external objects of which both chances to protect the driver’s head were successful.
          Additionally, drivers will have more space to exit the car if the car is upside down and stationary, as the HALO is essentially a second roll-over-gage.

      • jakobusvdl

        The halo rantcast was very disappointing.
        As Salvu points out there was information about the research that had been done, and informed comment on the reasons it was adopted, and even who had supported it.
        The podcast lacked any kind of balance or considered comment, you guys are normally better than that. Time to end the relentless FIA bashing?

      • jakobusvdl
  • Grace, if you’re reading this, Dover is one-mile and “The Big One” happens on restrictor plate tracks.

    With head protection, why not have all the drivers and team principles vote in the press conference or open forum? That way they can’t play the political game either. And any driver who wants it, the team will install it. The personal risk is just an extended version of getting in the car to begin with.

  • Achim

    While I agree that he FIA is rushing things with the Halo, one aspect I think should not be overlooked: I remember when Senna died, Italian prosecutors investigated Williams if there was any negligence. And did not the Bianci family sued the FIA and people of race control for the death of there son? In both accidents a Halo would not have helped, but my point is, that if someone dies during a F1 event, prosecutors will look into it and someone might be held responsible if they cannot show they did everything in their power to protect everyone involved.

    So when race control was only very hesitant to start/continue races under heavy rain after the Bianci accident (Silverstone last year comes to mind), it was as a viewer of course very frustrating. But at the same time I could understand them, because Charlie Whiting might be held personally responsible, if something goes horrible wrong and prosecutors can argue he should never have given the green light during bad weather.

    • Salvu Borg

      -The Italian prosecutors investigated Williams because the Italian law is different from most other countries as regards fatalities.
      I do not know if the Bainchi’s family pressed ahead or not with sued the FIA, but if they go ahead it will be a waste of time and money.

  • Agropyron

    Yusuke Hasegawa was not saying that Honda couldn’t test the engine on a dyno because they don’t have one. That’s ridiculous. He was saying there are things that are not possible to test on a dyno. For example, how the oil shifts around in the engine under various G loads, and vibrations associated with the way the entire car behaves when not on a dyno. Those things can only be tested on the track.

    Don’t get me wrong, Honda’s engine has been a complete disaster and they are clearly doing something very wrong, but Hasegawa’s statement is not an example of that.

    • I understand that. They do have a dyno. What they don’t have, and all the other teams do, is a dyno that can simulate all of the types of g-forces and vibrations the engines experience in F1. Ferrari have one, so does Merc. I happen to know that Zak was very surprised when he discovered that.

      From what I’ve learned from the teams is that is possible to test the oil movement, on the right dyno as well as vibrations.

      • Agropyron

        A dyno that can simulate 5 G to the left then 5 G to the right all within a couple seconds is something I would love to see. Seriously, if that exists, it would be one amazing piece of machinery.

        I guess with enough money you can build just about anything but I am somewhat mechanically inclined and I can’t imagine how that would work to actually simulate track conditions (talking about oil movement here). One way to get close might be to spin the engine and dyno on a centrifuge clockwise then rapidly switch to counter clockwise. That wouldn’t be a very good simulation though since you would have absolutely huge g-forces to the front or rear of the engine on the quick rotation change. You could keep spinning clockwise and roll the engine over on the front to back axis so the other side was facing out but that’s not a great simulation either since while you were rolling over the g-forces would be sending the oil to the top or bottom of the engine.

        I wouldn’t be surprised at all to hear that Ferrari and Merc have a dyno capable of simulating any g-force on the engine that it might experience in the car, one direction at a time. I also won’t claim to be as good of an engineer as the people working in the Ferrari and Mercedes factory, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Hasegawa to say that there are some things that happen to an engine during a race that you can’t simulate on a dyno.

        • BadCaptain

          This is the type of dyno they are referring. This is apparently the Bugatti Chiron engine doing a simulated run of the Ring.

          • Agropyron

            That’s cool and thanks for sharing, but a rig like that can only simulate 1 g because it’s just using the force of gravity pulling down on a rotated engine. I’m sure those extra 4 gs make a difference.

          • Salvu Borg

            Yes that is what is called a shaker rig, the one I have seen at Porsche was going about at least one hundred times faster, so much that it was near impossible to keep trace of the movements.

        • Not exactly sure as I don’t work itn eh industry but from what I have been told, the dyno’s some teams use are capable of providing more realistic simulations with multi-axis movement etc. I would imagine those are highly secretive pieces of kit so probably not a lot of YouTube videos explaining how they work. :) Is it 5 g’s? I don’t know that but clearly Merc’s is enough to avoid oil slosh issues. ;)

          • Agropyron

            Yeah. Those machines would certainly be well guarded secrets if they exist.

            I’m still inclined to think that the difference between Mercedes or Ferrari and Honda in dealing with these sorts of issues is due to better engineers and computer modeling rather than machines made of unobtanium that may defy the laws of physics ;)

            BTW Todd, I just started listening to your podcast this season and have been enjoying it. Thanks for the great work!

        • Salvu Borg

          Not only in a matter of seconds, but if you see an engine being tested on a shaker rig your eyes will hurt trying to catch and follow the movements, it is astonishing to watch.

          • Salvu Borg

            And yes there are some things that happen in a race that cannot be simulated on a dyno but oil splashing about under G-forces is not one of them. Hasegawa was talking about different things when he said that.

          • Agropyron

            When I said “For example, how the oil shifts around in the engine under various G loads…” I wasn’t coming up with my own brilliant examples, I was rephrasing the original quote which is as follows:

            “Many items we could not test on the dyno, so it is normal that we need to check some functions in the car. The oil tank is one of the biggest items, so we have a rig for the oil tank but we cannot recreate the same types of G forces and conditions as in the car.”

            The oil splashing about under g-forces was exactly what he was talking about. I would think the “rig” he refers to would be something similar to the video BadCaptian posted. Which, as Hasegawa correctly says, “cannot recreate the same types of G forces and conditions as in the car.”

      • Salvu Borg

        Testing “oil splash about under G-forces” it is called an engine shaker rig, I have seen a Porsche LMP1 engine being tested on an engine shaker rig, I couldn’t believe my eyes seeing the shaking and jolts movements the engine was subjected too.
        This was Porsche, which is much much smaller then Honda.
        It will be utterly stupid to think that a manufacturer the caliber of Honda lacks in anything (tools) to do with what they produce, whatever that might be.

      • jakobusvdl

        If you do understand that, it’s certainly not what you were saying in the ‘bravado award’.
        Maybe you guys were ‘having a laugh’ at Honda’s expense? That’s a bit of FBC bravado.