| Literature DB >> 30196257 |
Simon M Rosalie1,2, James M Malone1.
Abstract
In 2018, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile introduced the halo frontal cockpit protection system into Formula 1. While extensive testing was conducted to confirm that the halo protects the driver from contact, the halo's effect on the driver during overtaking was not tested prior to its introduction. Here, we describe the effect of a halo-type structure on the neck muscle activity of one of the authors, a national-level amateur racing driver, during on-track simulations designed to practise overtaking. We found that the halo-type structure caused an increase in the rates of fatigue and workloads of sternocleidomastoid and cervical erector spinae. The results suggest that the driver adopted a forward and right laterally flexed head position, presumably to clear the central pillar from his visible field. This has the potential to increase compressive loading of the cervical spine and affect the ability to use visual cues during steering manoeuvres. © BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: sports and exercise medicine; statistics and research methods
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30196257 PMCID: PMC6129061 DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2018-225427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Case Rep ISSN: 1757-790X
Figure 1Driver’s head position in sequential images taken on entry, mid-corner and corner exit without the halo-type structure (left-hand sequence) and with the halo-type structure (right-hand sequence). An increase in right lateral flexion can be seen particularly on corner entry and corner exit.
Table of estimates of the fixed effect on muscle workload, linear rate of fatigue with the halo-type structure compared with without the halo-type structure
| Muscle | Parameter | b | Error | df | t | P values | 95% CI | |
| Lower | Upper | |||||||
| LSCM | Workload | 0.52 | 0.22 | 40 097 | 2.31 | 0.021 | 0.08 | 0.96 |
| Linear fatigue | −3.57 | 0.39 | 40 097 | −9.19 | 0.001 | −4.34 | 2.81 | |
| LCES | Workload | 7.06 | 0.60 | 40 097 | 11.76 | 0.001 | 5.88 | 8.24 |
| Linear fatigue | −68.34 | 5.20 | 40 097 | −13.14 | 0.001 | −78.53 | −58.15 | |
| Quadratic fatigue | 140.85 | 12.08 | 40 097 | 11.66 | 0.001 | 117.16 | 164.52 | |
| Cubic fatigue | −87.14 | 7.94 | 40 097 | −10.98 | 0.001 | −102.71 | −71.57 | |
| RSCM | Workload | 6.78 | 0.23 | 40 097 | 29.89 | 0.001 | 6.33 | 7.22 |
| Linear fatigue | −0.86 | 0.39 | 40 097 | −2.19 | 0.029 | −1.63 | −0.09 | |
| RCES | Workload | 0.54 | 0.38 | 40 097 | 1.41 | 0.16 | .21 | 1.28 |
| Linear fatigue | −5.26 | 1.76 | 40 097 | −2.99 | 0.003 | −8.71 | −1.81 | |
| Quadratic fatigue | −0.36 | 1.70 | 40 097 | −0.21 | 0.831 | −3.71 | 2.98 | |
Quadratic and cubic rates of fatigue are shown where log likelihood tests indicated a better fit for models including these trends.
‘b’ is the estimate of the fixed effect. ‘Error’ is the SE. ‘t’ is the t-statistic for the fixed effect. ‘P’ is the significance of the effect. ‘95% CI’ is the 95% CI for the fixed effect.
LCES, left cervical erector spinae; LSCM, left sternocleidomastoid; RCES, right cervical erector spinae; RSCM, right sternocleidomastoid.
Figure 2Conditional growth curves for LSCM, LCES, RSCM and RCES showing the change in NMF over time with the halo (green) and without the halo (blue). LCES, left cervical erector spinae; LSCM, left sternocleidomastoid; NMF, normalised median frequency; RCES, right cervical erector spinae; RSCM, right sternocleidomastoid.