Video still: Sebastian Vettel testing the Halo device

FOM reveals first onboard video of Halo

2016 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Formula One Management has revealed for the first time how the Halo head protection system would change onboard camera views.

A video published on the official F1 website shows Sebastian Vettel driving with the device fitted to his Ferrari during this morning’s test session at the Circuit de Catalunya.

Vettel is the second driver to sample to device after team mate Kimi Raikkonen gave the Halo its debut yesterday.

The Halo has received mixed responses from drivers. Lewis Hamilton and Nico Hulkenberg have criticised the change, but Nico Rosberg supported the move.

Raikkonen said the increased head protection did not cause a significant problem in terms of visibility. The onboard camera is mounted well above the driver’s eyeline, which lies below the hoop which forms the majority of the structure.

According to FOM the version of Halo tested by the team is “Ferrari’s own interpretation of the Halo design” and “is by no means the finished article”. It noted the finished version will feature “a hinge for easier driver extraction” in the event of an accident.

The FIA has indicated it intends to introduce the Halo device next year.

2016 F1 season

Browse all 2016 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2016 F1 season, Sebastian VettelTags , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 107 comments on “FOM reveals first onboard video of Halo”

    1. Noooooo… Simply NO!!..this is ridiculous.. I won’t ever enjoy the onboard

      1. I don’t get this sentiment

        making racing, race tracks and rules more overerbearing is the alternative. I never ever want to see a driver die because it looks slightly worse

        It doesn’t even look THAT horrible, we watched an entire season with cars having dildos strapped to the nose, we have comical heavy mustache looking front wings and tiny little rear wings, and people are complaining about something that can keep a driver from getting hit/crushed/slammed to death

        1. “It doesn’t even look THAT horrible, we watched an entire season with cars having dildos strapped to the nose, …” exactly.

        2. I don’t want any driver to die.. I like safety but at the same time another side of me tells me it looks ugly..don’t think I’m an assh…it just I was expecting something similar to a windshield.. Not like airplane but like McLaren Honda of senna/prost.. Just bit higher..

          1. Well nah, it does look ugly. That’s fair to say.

            The issue is where you sit on vanity vs safety. I think if it’s on the side of vanity, that’s not great. Because safety is not something you should ignore for vanity I think.

            Doesn’t mean it’s wrong to think and say it’s ugly as sin however.

        3. If safety truly is paramount, then the regulations should be revised so that the top speed is around 150 km/h. Sure it will be a little boring, but hey, if it can keep a driver safe…

          1. @ironcito

            Yep, with an 150km/h speed limit Jules Bianchi would be alive and F1 would be dead.

          2. You’re turning it in a black v white argument. Under the same logic, why have seat belts? “If safety is paramount why not pedestrian speeds” still applies, right?

            They race at high speeds. The point is to make it as safe as possible to do so. The Halo is there as a potential solution to the last great flaw in F1 safety, which is the almost completely unprotected head area. A helmet can only do so much.

            @rethla Probably if you go under a tractor at 150 you would still be in trouble. But, I think it’s fair to say this isn’t meant to stop that from happening. The point is to deal with objects like tyres of other cars from hitting the drivers head.

            I think it would be more respectful to Jules to avoid bandying his crash around as part of a joke. The solution to prevent that from occurring again is to not have tractors in places where cars can potentially hit it. Which is why they have virtual safety car to ensure the cars are slowed to safe speeds.

            1. This sentiment is a black v white argument in and of itself. If you suggest that the halo is awful looking, inelegant, and cobbled together, then you must be against safety in all forms!

              It’s a solution, but that doesn’t mean it’s a particularly good one. Diego’s response is reductio ad absurdum, but there’s a salience in it in that this appears to simply be *a* solution tossed out there and accepted as *the* solution, at least colloquially. The point is that if you legislate all of the risk out of F1, you’ll legislate F1 away. I don’t buy Hulkenburg’s comments that there “needs to be some risk”, but F1’s entire existence is built on its being enjoyable to watch, and hideous things generally aren’t enjoyable to watch.

            2. @mike

              It wasnt a joke and it was no disrespect to Jules. He lived and died as a racer and he would have it no other way.

      2. Vettel: “I think it can be very ugly but nothing justifies not having these two guys (Surtees and Wilson) around.”

        My thoughts exactly.

        1. This is a smath comment. When a driver is imjured, we all cry that FIA needs to do more for the safety of the drivers, and now all we care is if the cars looks good or bad, when a car looking good became more important than a driver´s life?

          1. No new “device” has come in without controversy. The HANS device is a good example I think.

      3. pastaman (@)
        4th March 2016, 13:07

        Really? You will never enjoy onboard video ever again because now there is a curvy black piece at the bottom?

    2. Maybe they could install the camera on top of that thing… we won’t see the drivers helmet that way though.

      1. I thought that.. Or the nose.. But we wont see the driver helmet and hands moving while battling in the car

        1. There is already a nose camera.

          1. Thanks captain..

            1. In fairness, F1 being useless with it’s camera’s is another problem. (See indy and it’s rotating camera’s)

          2. Helmet camera? Drivers POV 😊

      1. Damn you, you Rick-rolled me there! :-)

      2. *claps* Well played

    3. No other thing I have ever been more against.

      1. pastaman (@)
        4th March 2016, 13:09

        You must live a pretty good life, then

    4. oh dear…

    5. The Halo definitely induces strong feelings from people mostly either of dislike or the opposite. Nico Rosberg has come out in support of it while Hulk has said he preffers maintaining that element of risk the Halo is meant to tackle. Hamilton on the other hand has said the stuff simply looks awful.

      While I do think F1 certainly needs some kind of head protection solution, apart from the driver helmet which has failed severally in recent times, I think that the stuff we have been presented with by Ferrari looks hideous. To me, it looks like something modeled after Angelina Jolie’s character in the Malificient. Some have gone ahead to call it a black pair of “thongs”.

      When Mercedes suggested the “Halo” concept, they presented a design that looked sleek and probably strong enough to withstand the forces such a device may undergo should it be the last barrier between a driver’s life and serious head injuries or death.

      Mercedes’ concept of Halo was beautiful but I think that a tough/tensile sheet of transparent material, coated with a nano finish which deflects dirt and water as the car moves ie self-cleaning and modelled in the Halo shape which eliminates the centre pylon may serve the purpose.

      For publicity reasons and exposure of sponsors, evidently, I think Ferrari may have rushed into the rubbish they have shown the world and I fear that drivers’ reaction to this hideous piece of device might lead to an abandonment and subsequent loss of what was a novel solution/idea which the sport sorely needs.

      1. “When Mercedes suggested the “Halo” concept, they presented a design that looked sleek and probably strong enough to withstand the forces such a device may undergo should it be the last barrier between a driver’s life and serious head injuries or death.”

        this does the same thing?

        “I think that a tough/tensile sheet of transparent material, coated with a nano finish which deflects dirt and water as the car moves ie self-cleaning and modelled in the Halo shape which eliminates the centre pylon may serve the purpose.”

        what tough transparent material would that be…. composite materials are the strongest/lightes materials available, anything else would be larger and heavier to achieve the same results, and thus would probably look worse since it would be larger.

        any way something like this is implemented is going to look a bit worse than without, but it can save lives for that little price

      2. Thats why Mercedes is #1 and Ferrari is distant second…. But test is a test.

        Most important question is… How much is vision impaired? Not much say Ferrari.

        Looks can be worked on, if base concept works.

        Personaly I want drivers to be as safe as possible and then cars as fast as possible. DRS and poor tires are unsafe “wink”,

        1. RaceProUK (@)
          4th March 2016, 19:30

          Ferrari are second because they don’t prioritise looks?

          I’ve read some utter nonsense on this site, but this is beyond even that.

      3. “the thong”.

        jeez thanks, now i won’t be able to see an F1 car from 2017 onwards without thinking about anything else. and not in a good way.

    6. ColdFly F1 (@)
      4th March 2016, 12:45

      What I do’t understand is. The FOM could share millions of interesting videos on Youtube and social media, but they instead decide to share a video the halo test and in which we cannot even assess the test (i.e. view from pilot’s perspective).

      Response to previous posters: I don’t mind the halo as it doesn’t obscure too much; and certainly not important parts like other cars (if there were any), the driver, or the tyres.

      1. I agree. Why not put a camera in the driver’s helmet as we’ve seen done in other series. At least that would be meaningful. This angle simply shows that the halo was installed…big deal, I can get that from stills.

        1. Bottas had a helmet cam from which we got to see live action on occasion I think 2 and 3 years ago and it was awesome. Really gave a better perspective of what it’s like for them in the cockpit.

        2. @velocityboy “Why not put a camera in the driver’s helmet as we’ve seen done in other series.”

          Because there not allowed to thanks to modern helmet safety regulations. Its the same reason you no longer see Indycar use those cameras.

          As to why they put out this shot & no other. They are testing new T-cam units so this is the only angle they have.

          1. @gt-racer Thanks, I was unaware of the reason why the in helmet camera was not used.

    7. All this halo nonsense!

      Formula1 is open cockpit racing. Always has been.
      It is inherently dangerous. Always has been.
      Thats what makes it Formula1. The pinnacle of motor racing.

      I am all for safety, but not by changing the very nature of the sport. What will they do next? Impose speed limits down the straights to limit injury from frontal impact? Where will it end?

      In addition, I do not believe the proposed halo will accomplish much in certain situations, for example a Bianchi (RIP) type crash. On the contrary, it may actually worsen such a situation.

      As an aside, there are many other forms of motor racing, many of which are in fully enclosed cars. If any drivers are no longer confident racing in an open cockpit, they are more than welcome to move to another type of racing.

      But please don’t spoil Formula1 for those drivers who WANT to race open cockpits, or for the millions of fans that enjoy it BECAUSE of the open cockpits.

      1. “But please don’t spoil Formula1 for those drivers who WANT to race open cockpits”. You miss the point that many F1-drivers are in favour of some sort of halo system.

        Vettel: “I think it can be very ugly but nothing justifies not having these two guys (Surtees and Wilson) around.”

        1. @matthijs No, I didn’t miss that point. I mentioned that those drivers may want to start thinking about moving to another type of racing.

          And I can assure you, the only way to prevent loss in F1, or any other type of motor racing for that matter, either 4 wheel or 2 wheel, with or without this proposed halo, is to ban motor racing altogether. For as long as man is racing these machines at high speed, there will always be the risk.

      2. pastaman (@)
        4th March 2016, 13:14

        So what you are saying is that the deaths of Wilson and Surtees are acceptable because it makes you, as a fan, feel all tingly inside watching other people risk their lives? And by adding this halo, now there is no more danger left in the sport?

        1. @pastaman No, not at all. No deaths are ever acceptable, but they are always inevitable. It is the very nature of the sport. Racing cars at extremely high speed comes with that risk. And racing open cockpit cars comes with an even higher risk. Thats just how it is.

          And no, I do not “feel all tingly inside watching other people risk their lives”. That may be what floats your boat, but not mine. Lets keep it objective, please.

          1. You want to keep it objective but you call the halo nonsense, suggest the next thing will be speed limits on the straights, and you tell the drivers to leave if they no longer want to race open cockpit cars?

            For me the halo is a great way to enhance safety for the drivers without compromising F1 as we have become accustomed to, while keeping it open cockpit as well.

            1. @robbie And you, dear sir, are totally entitled to your opinion.

            2. RaceProUK (@)
              4th March 2016, 19:32

              The difference is his opinion is well-reasoned and properly thought out, whereas yours is a knee-jerk reaction because it offends some asinine notion of ‘purity’.

      3. @stubbornswiss

        Formula1 is open cockpit racing. Always has been.
        It is inherently dangerous. Always has been.

        But please don’t spoil Formula1 for those drivers who WANT to race open cockpits

        Don’t start telling me F1’s always been open wheeled too…..
        Anyway, if the internet existed in the past, we’d complain about:
        -MR F1 cars
        -Actually….safety in general – Jackie Stewart wasn’t looked at with that much respect once upon a time
        -Run-offs, ANY run-off (this one’s quite comparable to the halo)
        -ARMCOOOSSSSSS and tyre barriers (and other barriers) (also comparable to the halo, excuse the all-caps)

        So…..why not say “Don’t spoil F1 for those who want NO run-offs and NO armcos”!

        Thats what makes it Formula1. The pinnacle of motor racing.

        No, it isn’t. Otherwise Indycar and Formula Ford would also be the pinnacle of motorsports.

        I mean, is speed, history, and (I’ll admit it) FIA’s whim (not the only reasons F1’s the pinnacle of motorsport) less important to how highly a championship is regarded than whether the cockpit is open or not?
        And you don’t think run-offs and armcos take anything from F1? (and YES, they DO make F1 a bit ugler, just like the halo will)

      4. RaceProUK (@)
        4th March 2016, 19:33

        Formula1 is open cockpit racing. Always has been.

        And still will be with the halo fitted.

    8. So why not fit the camera into the Halo device?
      It could fit dead centre and run any connections back down inside.

      1. Because we won’t be able to see what the drivers are doing(steering input).

        1. You can solve that problem by having 2 cameras and inserting the steering bit into the other view.

      2. @chalky Because its a safety device & nothing else will be allowed to be mounted onto it.

      3. Yes – good opportunity to change the cameras. The current onboards are rubbish – too high up, they make the cars look silly and any track action ahead is right at the top of the screen.
        Put cameras in the top of the halo at the back, then the view will be close to the driver’s eye level.

        And why does it take FOM a day and a half to release a video? More problems with the software?!

    9. Let’s do it. Great for driver safety and doesn’t look that bad. I’d bet the final version will even look slightly better than this.

    10. I think that better angles could be used. One thing I would certainly like to see on this concept is a 360-degree camera which they use in IndyCar. We would be able to get some absolutely cracking shots from there.

      1. @craig-o FOM do have rotating cameras but the teams don’t like running them because they are larger, heavier & draw more power.

        Also there is some evidence out there that while rotating cameras are very popular among American audiences on the ovals, Elsewhere around the world they are far less popular & many see them as a distraction & unnecessary gimmick.
        They used to be commonplace in the DTM series for example but focus test’s with broadcasters proved that most fans didn’t like them so WIGE (Who handles the DTM broadcast) stopped using them. Likewise Eurosport looked at using them in there WTCC coverage but backed off because viewer survey’s came back lukewarm & the WEC broadcaster found the same.

        1. Perhaps I’m in a minority then @gt-racer

        2. @gt-racer Actual rotating cameras aren’t necessary though and are old tech.
          FOM should be using 3D 360 degree panoramic lens cameras and then use computer software to unwarp the view so they can broadcast any angle they want and change that angle in replays even during slow motion or paused time. The camera could never be looking the wrong way and miss something. We would have multiple views of each bit of onboard footage available for replays even if the live broadcast wasn’t looking in that direction.
          FOM could then release videos and by using software on their website or an f1 app we could ourselves control the camera direction during the video. You could plug in your Oculus Rift and virtually become a passenger sitting on that car. With today’s computing power these kind of things are possible. FOM are years if not a whole decade behind the times though.
          @craig-o I don’t think you are in a minority.

    11. Please dont!! F1 is a open cockpit sport if the drivers want more safety go to lemans and btw there are fatal accidents in all racing categories open or closed cockpit

      1. RaceProUK (@)
        4th March 2016, 19:34

        So you think avoidable death is acceptable?

    12. No, please. Bernie, go home…you are killing Formula 1…

      1. @jorge-lardone This is nothing to do with Bernie, Its been pushed for by the GPDA (AKA The drivers!).

    13. If this will save someone’s life, I’m for it. And it does not look so bad.

      1. Wheel teathers, no packracing against a catch fence and no racing with workers on the track at aquaplaining conditions also saves lifes. Surtees, Wilson and Bianchi would all be alive and it wouldnt look stupid.

        1. I agree. There’s a lot more room for improvement of safety. But as the main reason for disagreement about Halo that I see is the aesthetics. My opinion is that security is more important than appearance, and I think that Halo will eventually evolve into a much safer and better looking solution. If drivers believes that it can help, I’m for it.

          1. I wanted to write ‘safety’. I apologize for my poor Google Translate English.

          2. Yes but i cant help but feel this halo is just a gimmick and the important saftydiscussions are being left out.

            Why was workers on the track during full race at a place where a car had just aquaplained? The current rules should make that impossible but it happened and why is that?

            Instead of discussing that things like Halo, skirts on recovery vehicles, virtual safty car etc. are being fooled around with.

        2. RaceProUK (@)
          4th March 2016, 19:35

          Wheel tethers

          Are already fitted to F1 cars, but as with anything, they can only do so much.

    14. I think the suspension that hit Massa would have flown right through it. And I don’t think it would have saved Bianchi either.

    15. Alexandre Medvedev
      4th March 2016, 16:53

      If you really are pushing for safety… why not have all the drivers just race simulators? How safe is that?

      1. … They race F1 cars. That’s what we are doing. While we do it, we should minimize risk.

    16. Get used to it. If it saves 1 life, its worth it. I don’t care about sentiment and the lack of danger as the speed will come back again next year with better tires and much better looking cars. The same arguments against the halo, were used against seat belts, higher side protection, moving the seat back from the front suspension, safer fuel tanks, helmets, fire protection overalls, roll bars, safety bars, survival cells etc. Remember when Jackie Stewart was called a coward in the media for actively pursuing safety improvements? Yeah that was a thing. F1 will come up with a more slender design for the Halo each year, such is the way of things in F1. F1 will always be dangerous, but there is no solid reason to actively leave a gap open for more fatal accidents to occur.

      1. @tamburello

        I guarantee that it will save at least 1 life (Possibly many more) if you stop racing entirely. So stop F1? So your argument doesn’t hold up. However that doesn’t automatically mean that we shouldn’t use the halo system. See my comment below to see what I mean.

    17. I do think most people miss the point. Obviously if you argue that the halo system would have prevented the deaths of Surtees and Wilson so we must have this system no matter what then you have to take this kind of argument to its logical conclusion, which is stopping racing. No matter what you do someone will die at some point and the only answer finally is stop racing to avoid this.

      So obviously you have to balance the risk with the fun in racing from the point of view of its fans (You will always find people accepting the risk involved). Lets just say F1 develops finally into closed cockpits one day, and the open cockpit part was really key for attracting the attention of most people to the sport then you will see the sport losing most fans, and either F1 goes back to open cockpit then or another new series has the chance to attract those fans/lure them away from F1.

      What I want to say is, you cannot argue with deaths happening directly. Only indirectly, does making F1 safer this way decrease its attraction to a point at which it loses its appeal for most people basically entirely, yes or no. (It also could increase the attraction, see at the bottom of this comment)

      Look at extreme sports, like free climbing, base jumping etc. People like to watch people doing this and people doing this really like doing this, they accept the risk. Many or I guess most of them would do it even if no one bothered to watch them. (Many couldn’t keep doing it because no one watching means no sponsors.) However all those people are grown ups, so they have to decide which level of risk is ok for them.

      And here comes the hard truth. If you accept the increased risk of dying while doing free climbing then in a sense IT IS OK TO DIE.

      PS: I like things to be safe. I wouldn’t watch F1 if every year 2 drivers died. But on the other hand I really think F1 is really safe already. There is no comparison to bike racing like MotoGP with or without Halo, so I guess for my part the current drivers should chose if they want it or not. I guess it wouldn’t make much difference to me.

      1. No driver or team would run with the halo if it is voluntary because of the weight disadvantage they would incur. This is why any safety improvement should always be mandatory, as with the Hans system.

        The Fia and the teams conduct considerable research in to safety. It is one area where they do take their time and make carefully considered decisions before introducing new systems. Indycar are also concerned about the risks of open cockpits and are monitoring the research going on in Formula 1, it is very likely that other open cockpit series will follow F1 down this path.

        1. As I said I am not against Halo, certainly not because of any aesthetics concerns (It does look worse, but come on, that shouldn’t be too much of a problem..), and yes I guess it should be either mandatory or not. However the drivers can still decide on a democratic basis.

          I mean maybe it is even possible to decide on an individual level, it depends on how much it impedes the view. In Skiing currently they are testing airbags within their skiing suits. And it does restrict movement a little, however currently drivers can chose freely if they want it or not, and there are some who use it. And I guess it will be more over time even if is not made mandatory.

          1. not *drivers* I mean *skiers* of course..

          2. “the drivers can still decide on a democratic basis”

            The GPDA are pushing this idea (as mentioned by @gt-racer above), I really don’t think that would be the case if the majority of drivers were against it.

            1. So halo it is, if they want it they should get it.

      2. It’s an interesting point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a driver taking a calculated risk, living life to the fullest and paying the consequences. It’s a part of what makes us human. Choice. Remove the risk from F1 and you are left with a boring, sterile sport (You could argue that this has already happened). The halo device is yet another step in that direction.

        I expect it to have a similar effect to what DRS has had on the sport. A system designed to satisfy the casual viewer by increasing the number of overtakes (to keep viewing figures as high as possible) yet is having a long term negative impact on the numbers by pushing the hardcore fans away from the sport.

    18. how about letting drivers decide whether to use them or not? hulkenberg and hamilton hate it and probably wouldn’t use it, whereas rosberg surely would.

      personally i think it looks hideous, and it has no place on a f1 car. but if drivers wish to have it, with slightly worse visibility to those who do not use it, let them do it.

      1. Yeh its a good idea in theory, like the hockeyplayers and their helmets. In practice i think no driver would dare to opt for it if it wasnt forced for all cars.

        1. @rethla

          While I think usually it is correct to make safety things mandatory in a competitive sport, it must not be the case always. See my skier example above, and do you honestly believe if the FIA made helmets and seat belts voluntary TODAY, that all drivers would drive without seat belts and only a leather cap again? I think all would keep their seat-belts and helmets as they are. Obviously that doesn’t count for all safety measures. However it is simply not true that a racing driver would always choose less safety. Helmets and seat belts are completely accepted by drivers today, and them being mandatory is not really necessary today anymore.

          Lauda stopped even participating in a race and threw a championship title away because of safety concerns. ;)

          1. Sorry I meant “it has not to be the case always” (big difference..)

      2. Would you take this attitude to other safety issues? If it is voluntary, decisions become about gaining an advantage (by not using the item) not safety. Either a safety improvement is a worthwhile addition (in which case it should be used by all) or it is not.

    19. It’s very politically correct to agree with Vettel but I’m with Hulkenberg and Hamilton. I don’t want to see such a thing on an F1 car ever

      If they can get the full on fighter jet style canopy to work, fine. I still wouldn’t like it as it would not be F1 in the true sense but rather a hyped up LMP1, but at least it won’t be a monstrosity such as this

      Or better, leave it as it is now. The level of safety in F1 now is high. To neutralize it completely and to turn F1 into an Institute of Advanced Motorists, would be to kill it. As Brundle said, it’s health and safety gone mad

      What’s next? Limit them to 300 km/h? Then to 250? Then to road speeds maybe? Sheer insanity as typical in the contemporary rotten PC-mad Western society

      1. You sound like Donald Trump, moaning about “political correctness” (whatever that is, presumably you don’t like the fact that we aren’t in the 1950s any more, and women, ethnic minorities and gays aren’t stoned in the streets). I don’t like the halo myself, but is being concerned about the driver’s safety and being in favour of this particular solution some sort of odious left-wing plot or something?

        If you’re going to complain about it, try and do so without resorting to cliches. That way, you might not sound like you’re 12 years old.

        1. @jules-winfield Did you mean that Trump association as an insult?

          I don’t care about your implication one yota. Trump is rude, sometimes he says outrageous things but he also speaks a lot of truths. The fact that they’re uncomfortable truths, incompatible with the false sense of idealistic humanist righteousness of some people doesn’t make them less truthful

          So you’re concerned about the drivers safety and I’m not because I’m opposed to the halo? Who gave you the monopoly to decide that? I’ll answer that for you: PC gave you that idea, that’s exactly how it works, thanks for proving my point

          And of course, since I’m not PC then of course I must be living in the 1950’s, want ethnic minorities to be stoned on the streets and a 12 year old to boot. The cliches are all yours my friend

      2. @montreal95

        It’s very politically correct to agree with Vettel

        Political correctness is (according to the dictionary I have open in front of me) “the avoidance of forms of expression that or action that exclude, marginalise or insult certain racial, cultural or other groups”.

        Which ethnicities are being marginalised by F1 improving driver safety?

        1. @keithcollantine Well thats one type of political correctness. Everyone competing in being the most saftyminded induvidual in F1 fits very well into that wording aswell.

        2. @keithcollantine Keith, please, we had that discussion once, long ago. If you choose to stick to the dictionary definition of political correctness that’s your choice. I wish everyone was like you. But as I told you then I’m telling you now, the definition has grown like an out of control monster to mean so many things that weren’t a part of it in the first place. That genie is out of the bottle and is never coming back in again. Unless we kick it back into the bottle ourselves. Unless we speak our truths even if they’re not fashionable. Unless we stop being afraid that we’ll get associated with the “wrong groups” in the society by conformist people just because our opinion is different than theirs. Look at the perfect example in the reply to my comment just above yours. I’m being associated with Trump because I denounce PC. Funny…

      3. @montreal95 I think there is nothing wrong about not liking the Halo or wanting to keep F1 cockpits as they are. Several drivers and a lot of fans have expressed their dissatisfaction with the Halo – too ugly, too unsafe, too safe (‘F1 must be dangerous’), too whatever. I am not blaming anyone, who disagrees with Vettel.

        But I think he is right. I have never watched F1 because there is chance that a driver might die and I do not think that this possibility somehow makes the sport more exciting. So if anyone can make the sport 100% safe (which they cannot because speed and crashes are what motorsport, not only F1, is about), then it is awesome. If they can make it a bit safer, then it is good.

        We have seen a lot of ugly cars in the history of F1 as new developments appear all the time. I believe that the Halo is certainly not the ugliest thing we have experienced and even if it does not look nice, then it is not here forever – other, more aesthetically pleasing solutions will come in the future so there is not much to worry about.

        1. @girts I disagree with your opinion but I respect it immensely. Thanks a lot for replying to the point and not “killing the messenger” so to speak

          Now to why I disagree. Like you I’ve never watched F1 for the possibility of drivers dying. I started watching from the 1994 Monaco GP, the race after Senna died. So Bianchi’s(eventual) fatality was the first I’ve ever witnessed live. Needless to say it was, and still is, a very bad experience
          However, the very fact that for 20 years there was not a driver fatality says that the cars are as safe as they can be in a pinnacle of motor racing driving at immense speeds and it’s impossible to plan for every eventuality. Halo wouldn’t have saved Bianchi. It also wouldn’t have saved Massa from Barichello’s errand spring. Yes it might have saved Surtees and Wilson, but then again what if the onboard camera that detached from Jean Alesi’s car in Monza 95 and missed Berger’s head by centimeters would’ve deflected off such a halo and into Berger’s head killing him?

          Speed equals danger. It’s simple physics. Human body isn’t build to withstand sudden deceleration from 300kph. And therein lies the problem with devices such as halo. It’s not only the extreme ugliness of the thing(maybe there were uglier things in F1 history but not many that I can remember) it’s what it represents. Because to neutralize danger is to neutralize speed. That’s the next step on this slippery slope

          Let’s face it: F1 drivers are top sportsmen getting paid to drive the most cutting edge fastest cars on the planet. Thankfully they’re not the gladiators of the 50’s-70’s risking their lives every single time they step into the car. But the very nature of what is not only their profession but their passion means that there’s a very very small but existing chance they will die. There’s a reason that in Russian for example F1 drivers aren’t called drivers but “pilots” instead. And being a pilot is a very prestigious but at the same time dangerous profession. It simply comes with the territory

          Put it another way: I’ve done some parachuting in my life. I know that there was an extremely small but not non-existent chance that on any of my jumps the parachute would not open and I’d be a dead man. You know-speed toward hard earth, sudden deceleration and death. Same keywords as above. But man was it worth it! same is with bungee jumping, ski jumping, skeleton etc. etc. etc. Same with gymnastics even: one wrong move and you break your neck

          You cannot sanitize everything. So you put this halo on. Then after a while another driver will inevitably get killed. You put more monstrosities on until someone says hey why not decrease the speed? Afterall F1 is controlling speeds since the 1970’s. Let’s put a speed limit on like on the production Mercs and BMW’s, why not? This cycle will never end unless people accept that some activities have the element of danger and if you want them at all you need to stop trying to over-control them

          Hulkenberg has said it perfectly: The level of danger in current F1 is acceptable. Drivers walk away from most violent accidents. Freak stuff however will always happen. Because it’s the fastest sport on earth. I want it to always stay that way that’s all

          1. @montreal95 Thank you for the reply! Come to think of it, we also call F1 drivers ‘pilots’ in Latvian…

            I agree with you that speed limits would be completely unacceptable. Of course, regulations have been used to keep the speed under control and that will continue. But direct speed limits would obviously kill what the sport is about and they would also make a lot of things irrelevant – for instance, what is the point of circuit grading if you can safely drive F1 cars on kart circuits? All you need to do is adhere to a certain speed limit. I guess it is a matter of drawing the line.

            1. @girts Thanks for bothering to read thru my(way too long) post. Drawing the line officially on this matter is a problem to public image not dissimilar to what we have with engines: even though F1’s carbon footprint wouldn’t significantly change even if all the engines were 20000 RPM revving V12’s as it’s the flying round the world that’s immensely more meaningful in that respect. But for PR F1 needs engines seen as “green”. Equally bad for PR would be to draw a line on safety improvements even if anyone can see that some things cannot be done if F1 is to remain F1. Unofficially, however, the rot needs to stop somewhere…

    20. There has to be a better design than that.
      A: It looks freaking ugly.
      B: Springs can still fly haphazardly through the air. They don’t aim for the centre divider.

    21. Absolutely ridiculous. Hulk and Hamilton are spot on this matter.

    22. I just love all the negative comments from people who never have and never will set foot in a an actual race car much less an F1 car. “It looks hideous!!” “F1 is open cockpit, anything else is blasphemous!!!” “Danger is part of the sport!!!”
      By that reasoning, lets get rid of helmets and insist the drivers (who are the ones actually risking their lives for your amusement; and who have asked for this protection) just go back to caps and goggles! That is the “DNA of the sport” is it not?×720/546b2db1a20de_-_a143049046_10a-lg.jpg
      And while we are at it, lets get rid of those pesky race harnesses as well; seat belts are for wimps!! Right?
      The bottom line is this, throughout its more recent history, a major concern in F1 has been safety…I would imagine because people dying tend to be a bit detrimental for a sport. Does the “halo” look great (and thank you very much to the bright spark that labeled it the “thong”…now I’m never going to be able to see anything else)? Not really, but then it’s the first shot and just the first test. I feel very confident that more solutions will be tested (Red Bull’s semi-open cockpit) and the engineers will design a much more elegant final solution. Personally, if it saves a driver’s life and keeps the sport I love around, so much the better. Can’t look much worse than having a sexual aid as the nose of your car.

    23. Sviatoslav (@)
      4th March 2016, 19:45

      To be honest, I didn’t think it would look this horrible from the on-board camera. From the outside, it’s more or less okay and acceptable. But I will never enjoy on-board videos once they implement that thing.

    24. My personal view on this, is that if drivers want to be completely safe, don’t race, don’t compete.

      The cockpits have been completely exposed for years, and the drivers should accept this risk.

      1. They know its an ENORMOUS rIsk, Motor Racing is dangerous, always has been, always will be. But this isn’t Worlds Deadliest Race Cars.

        Its a SPORT nobody should die doing it. But thats an acceptable risk to you isn’t it?

      2. Just remote control the car, then you will be even safer :-). How can you say no to something that might save lives?

        1. @Wihan Stay tuned for “Roborace” the new supportseries for Formula E starting next season.

    25. I’m angry!!! Really Angry!!! How anyone can put aesthetics over safety is truly baffling. No one should die for our entertainment. I hadn’t seen a driver die until Jules in F1, and honestly it still haunts me to this day. I dont dislike any F1 driver, I respect all of these guys for what they risk every other weekend. The least the FIA can do is make it a bit safer.

      I dont get the hate, it’ll get refined so it does look better. I dont get the hate, or is it because Saint Lewis said it and the fanboys think its the worst thing ever.

    26. Advert space!

    27. BTW thats the 1st shot from one of the new High definition in-car cameras that FOM have been testing for the past few months.

      I said over the final 2-3 races of last season that the reason they were not showing shots from some of the cars (Alonso & Grosjean for example) was because they were testing new cameras as well as a new cell network to receive the signals.

      As I last heard the plan is to be able to receive live feeds from every car for the 1st time ever (No series has ever managed to get feeds from every car) although that will be dependent on how the system ends up holding up. The biggest issue is always the bandwidth, If you put too much through the system you end up with signal drops & image quality issues that affect all cameras.

    28. Well, I also agree that nowadays we have an acceptable risk concerning f1 safety standards.
      If it’s something that some drivers want and others don’t, it’s just need to not be mandatory. And to keep this more “fair”, the rules may state that if a halo device weights 5 kilos and a driver chooses not to use one, a ballast of the same weight will be added to the car.
      Another point that I would like to mention, is that it looks that there is no enough research about other safety problems the halo might cause. The halo is effective against tires, but if we take as example the horrid Kubica’s crash in Montreal, who can tell that if the halo was on Kubica’s car it couldn’t act as a spear and enter inside the driver’s helmet and kill him? For me it looks that the halo might decrease the risk of injury in some cases and increase in others. I think more research is needed, and not only use a cannon to throw tires against it and conclude that this is the best solution.

    Comments are closed.