Surtees: Hamilton shouldn’t dismiss Halo

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: F1 and motorcycle world champion John Surtees, whose son Henry was killed by a flying wheel in a Formula Two race seven years ago, says Lewis Hamilton should accept the halo device is necessary.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Will this be a breakthrough year for Toro Rosso?

I can see both Red Bull and Toro Rosso having stronger seasons and even fighting for third and fourth in the constructors’ as the season goes on. Toro Rosso will perhaps have an edge on Red Bull in the early stages of the season with the ‘TAG Heuer’ engine still a bit down on power.

It looks to be a very impressive car and it has been praised by many. James Key was a huge signing for them. It would be great to see Verstappen and Sainz having a reliable car and fighting further up the field.

From the forum

Pierre Gasly, Prema, Circuit de Catalunya, GP2, 2016

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Fred Schechter!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

On this day 20 years ago Damon Hill won the season-opening Australian Grand Prix. It was the first world championship event held at Albert Park and gave Hill the rare distinction of winning two consecutive world championship races held in the same country, as he had also won the 1995 season finale in Adelaide.

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.

94 comments on “Surtees: Hamilton shouldn’t dismiss Halo”

  1. Has anyone got a photo of the design proposed by red bull? Or are Williams referring to the gran turismo concept they put out a few years back!?

    I do prefer the sound of the cockpit style canopy, but also it would be interesting to see how they ‘halo’ would be developed to look better..

      1. Thanks Alex :) it is the one I was thinking about. Although it is a bit extreme in that render, I like it.. I know there is also the ‘what if the car turns over’ scenario but what if they were to make the canopy shatter with the tap of a button like they have is jets/fighter planes!?

        1. Do you have a source for 5th gen fighter jet canopies shattering with the press of a button?

        2. I think the fighter jet-esque canopies look pretty nice in terms of design. They also deflect debris and tyres really well. The FIA did a test a few years ago…

          1. @eriko That video highlights one of the concerns the FIA test’s brought up with regards to the canopy; That been that they found that any objects that hit the canopy were deflected at heights & angles that increased the chances of them entering spectator areas.

            There were a number of other concerns that came from the test’s with regards to visibility because F1 cockpits are narrower than jet planes & the increased curvature of the canopy increased distortion when looking through them. They also had concerns with the way light was reflected on the canopy which also hindered driver visibility & an additional concern was that with the narrowness of the canopy they couldn’t find a wiper system that was effective enough in wet weather or to just clean the canopy, You always end up with drivers having only a very narrow area that is kept clean.

            The Red Bull style solution is a hybrid of the Halo with some additional protection in the form of a screen across the front with the support pillars for the halo at the sides rather than at the front. The benefits of this is that you don’t have the extreme curvature you get with a full on canopy because the screen at the front is basically flat so there isn’t the distortion & you can get a wiper system to work more effectively. And since I don’t believe they would have the screens down the sides or at the top they can still claim it to be an open cockpit formula.

          1. @coldfly

            That. Looks. Absolutely. AWESOME!

            The sexiness of that car is unbelievable. I would be delighted if the cars looked that way. Alas, I somehow believe they will yet again manage to make the cars uglier, while not gaining anything regarding overtaking either…

          2. My favorite:
            Love the simplicity of the design while retaining the open-wheel look rather than some of the open suspension/closed wheel designs.

          3. @coldfly That looks awesome!

        3. I agree that fighter jet style cockpits seem a better solution and have the potential to look a lot better. This concept looks nice

          1. This look great! If they can pull this off, I’m all for it! Really don’t like the halo design, though…

      2. That is not the concept Williams is talking about.

      3. Fudge Ahmed (@)
        10th March 2016, 11:35

        That is not the concept Williams are referring to. Red Bull has come up with an alternative to the Halo with a glass shielded front, swept design and two support structures to the sides as opposed to directly in front of the driver. They have likened it to a ‘batmobile’ concept but neglected to mention which Batmobile! There are no pictures of it yet but it will be trialled or shown off in some form this month apparently.

        On an unrelated, I really wish the 2017 aero regs would restrict front wing elements to something closer to that RB GP2 car above, look at the simplicity of that thing, would restrict wake turbulence immeasurably.

    1. As Mr. X already mentions that is not the concept Williams mentions at all @nemo87, @corix, @eriko, @coldfly. The Red Bull idea is more or less the Halo design Mercedes came up with but it has perspex sheets closing the gap between cockpit sides and the Halo on top, improving protection from smaller objects.

      Red Bull mentioned that they would show the concept in a show car run early april (correct my if I am wrong on that timeline) but they have not shown any pictures or renders of it so far.

      We do have one render where someone took the Mercedes Halo render and added the “windshield” to it to approximate what Red Bull proposed:

      1. this looks the best solution so far… both for safety and aesthetics. I am also sure that these designs are just the first drafts (with a few tweaks, which will come by time, we should have an design which is acceptable to both drivers and fans).

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          10th March 2016, 12:05

          correct @bascb, the following came out on the RBR idea last week:

          Red Bull Racing has been running a parallel design project that is based more around a larger open-topped acrylic shield surrounding the driver, and does not feature the central pillar in front of the driver.
          Instead, there will be two smaller columns on either side of the cockpit front.
          The acrylic material is understood to be similar to that used in the canopy of the Bloodhound land speed record car.

      2. @bascb Thanks for clarifying it. I am really curious about this Red Bull proposal.

    2. Since the beginning, I’ve personally alway defended the “Fighter Jet” Canopy. Its the way f the future. It creates new, exciting ways to improve aerodynamics, it provides extra positioning for unique broadcast camera angles, it can allow new exciting HUD on it for displaying information for both driver and fans, and it should be safe. The Mclaren concept is gorgeous, the Red Bull one was created for Gran Turismo, the game.

      Formula 1 should be about innovation and the pinnacle of engineering as well as driving talent. Having a driver’s head supporting the G’s is both not aerodynamically efficient, as well as safe and it doesn’t prove much of a driver’s talent beyond neck fitness. Make the cars faster, more aerodynamic, pushing current cornering speed aerodynamic limitations, as well as top speed, and the physical aspect of racing will still be there.

      The “Halo” just seems an in between, silly concept to please the “road safety” FIA branding, without having to create much change from the current formula. Lets be bold, Formula 1 and FIA: Lets take Formula one to the next step!

      1. I still think a canopy creates more problems than it solves, and even adding a windscreen to the halo would hugely change the cars aerodynamically and therefore much more thought, discussion, and money would be needed to do that. Given F1’s woes, which includes money and finding a direction, I can see why right now the type of halo Ferrari ran the other day is the best option. Greatly added safety and fairly ‘bolt-on’. A working canopy would take a massive rethink and redesign of the cars as we know them, and would be a game changer that F1 teams can’t afford, and even ‘just’ a big windscreen would so change how air would hit (read miss) the rear wing that I think even it would also cause a major change front to back aerodynamically that I don’t think F1 is prepared for.

  2. “On this day 20 years ago Damon Hill won the season-opening Australian Grand Prix. It was the first world championship event held at Albert Park and gave Hill the unique distinction of winning two consecutive world championship races held in the same country, as he had also won the 1995 season finale in Adelaide.”

    Hate to be an anorak but Michael Schumacher did the same thing in Japan (Aida and Suzuka), right before Damon won in Adelaide and Melbourne. ;)

    1. Cucamest (@kevincucamest)
      10th March 2016, 1:00

      @brickles The race in Aida was held under the name of “Pacific Grand Prix” so technically Schumacher didn’t win two consecutive Japanese Grand Prix even though they were both held in the same country.

      1. @kevincucamest Aida and Suzuka are definitely “two consecutive world championship races held in the same country”.

      2. Jack Jeffreys
        10th March 2016, 17:34

        Moss has done it too (italian and Pescara grand Prix 1957) and Alan Jones (US East 1980 and Long beach 1981) too

    2. @brickles Very true! Have tweaked the text.

    3. JV’s first F1 race, which he dominated on Saturday and Sunday until an oil leak spewing oil on Damon forced him to cede the first place position he held all day, to take second in favour of DH.

  3. Do people want to watch people do and say as they are told, or actually come up with their own ideas/implementations and innovate?

    What Surtees is saying, is that Lewis needs to repeat the party line. He is not offering any kind of reason or thoughtfulness, only that Lewis should behave like he is told. This is why F1 fails, and cannot offer real competition. Lewis fortunately, offers to question authority, and seems to hold reason a little more dear than those who would seek an easy buck.

    Think for yourself, or just follow orders.

    1. You’re right in so many ways.

      Lewis is the modern day Dale ernhardt SR.

      Just like Lewis, Dale SR was brave enough to think for himself and tell the world what a joke the HANS device was.

      We need more ‘thinkers’ like Dale SR and Lewis!

      1. @xsavior I completely disagree with your take on this.

        @Mr. X And where is Dale Sr. now? We really need more ‘thinkers’ deciding for themselves that they don’t need all the straps available to keep themselves safe? Yeah…he sure told the world eh? That’s why everyone uses the HANS device now.

        I’m all for free thinkers suggesting things outside the box. LH and DESr have not provided anything to further safety. Saying ‘just don’t do anything’ wrt a halo or canopy, is saying keep it as it is, which is not innovation.

        1. Robbie I thought you’d see through my comment…. bummer.

          I think we can all agree that thinking outside the box is not Lewis’ strong point. He’s a bit to reactionary/emotional for that.

    2. @xsavior F1 fails because external people comment on it? That’s a new one.

      Surtees is not saying Hamilton should “repeat the party line”. Surtees has lost a son through an unfortunate accident that might (MIGHT!) have been prevented with the halo, and through this perspective is of the opinion that Hamilton should look at the bigger picture.

      Surtees is not talking from a “thou shalt obey” perspective, rather from a personal one. And there is nothing wrong with that – if you are of the opinion that Hamilton can speak his mind, then you should do the same for Surtees.

    3. maarten.f1 (@)
      10th March 2016, 7:38

      @xsavior You don’t think a device that could potentially have saved his son’s life is reason enough? No, Hamilton has a perfectly good reason to oppose the ‘halo’ device: it’s ugly.

      Hamilton is allowed to his opinion, that’s fine. And yes, I agree with him it’s not the most aesthetically pleasing. But sometimes change for the sake of safety is necessary. Back in the day when Stewart raced he faced much of the same opposition, but thanks to him we can now watch racing with a very small chance of seeing people die. And the ‘halo’ device, or whatever it’ll eventually be, is just the next step in that.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        10th March 2016, 12:24

        How far do you go though? Is driving cars at the speed they do too dangerous? Should Should we just stop F1?

        1. I’ll never understand these types of extreme arguments…where will it stop then? Probably someplace reasonable and doable, and far from stopping racing altogether. There’s only about a million variables and possibilities in between the two scenarios that don’t have to mean stopping racing.

    4. @xsavior

      He is not offering any kind of reason or thoughtfulness

      That couldn’t be further from the truth. The reason he offers comes from his own, tragic, personal experience.

    5. I have to hold Lewis’ side on this one as you do. On the other hand, looking on the safety issues from John’s perspective everything looks utterly different. In my opinion losing a child is definitely the most horrific experience any parent can think of and I can only empathize to certain degree with John. However, nor Henry, Jules or Justin, would be saved by the type of protection we’ve seen tested recently. The angle of debris or wheel impact was of the kind that proposed protection would barely reduce risk in those cases. In Jules’ case he would be probably dead on the spot because of carbon fiber splinters and possible chest injuries coming from the halo. I see Red Bull’s proposal of fighter jet kind of canopy as the only proper solution. Just a glance at F16 or F15 can give you a good idea what can be done.

      1. that is nonsense. surtees would have had a markedly increased chance of survival if the halo was in use at the time on his car. wilson would have a slightly increased chance too simply from the possibility of it reflecting the debris.

        you can’t say with any certainty what would have happened, or what will happen. but you can reduce risks. i’ve said before that bianchi’s best chance would have been for the yellow flags rules to have been properly enforced in the months and years before he died. but he still might have died even if that were case. surtees might still have died with the halo on his car, but it would have been less likely.

        there’s too much black and white thinking around this whole issue.

      2. @Boomerang,

        There aren’t many technologies in the world that can satisfy 100% of the requirements from the moment it goes in production. No matter how much R&D, simulation, testing or quality analysis you do, you can’t prepare for how it will perform in real world in any foreseeable/unforeseeable conditions.

        We need to start with small implementations, build on it as we keep learning & eventually the technology will evolve into what we expected & will exceed it.

        ‘Halo’ is a good base point in my view. It will certainly not ensure protection in every single scenarios but provides something al lot better than what we have now.

        1. @frood19 @praxis Agree with you both.

    6. it’s ironic, that Lewis gets a lot of “criticism” for reacting emotionally, yet that seems to be the way of his detractors. This isn’t about Lewis, it isn’t about Surtees’ history, it’s about providing reason and evidence to come to a conclusion. And for the life of me, I have yet to see anyone clearly justify putting an obstacle in front of the driver, to protect against something that is really a distant edge case in F1.

      See past pathos, appreciate logos, too often we ourselves are victims of the emotional appeal, and fail to understand the reality of the situation. If the Halo is such a great idea, allow the teams/drivers to choose for themselves whether or not to use it, I bet anyone here 100$ that if all the drivers had the choice, Vettel would elect NOT to have the halo. It’s the same with the power units, introducing different approaches, with out clear justification, and overt obfuscation and appeals to ignorance.

  4. The day Watkins Glen hosts F1 races again is when pigs sprout wings and fly over the start line there. And that is a very sad fact.

  5. John Rymie (@)
    10th March 2016, 1:41

    Is the ‘Halo’ an unintentional master stroke?

    Think back 2 years and the idea of a ‘canopy’ would have been met with the outrage we’re seeing towards the Halo. Now the ‘canopy’ is actually the preferred option based on the comments.

    I believe it’s unintentional but I do love that it developed this way, whatever the solution that is chosen Halo/Canopy because I believe it is time for one or the other…or a new yet to be developed solution.

  6. I truly hope the halo idea gains no traction, & that Formula One decides to go dramatic with the rules overhaul & move the design closer to the Red Bull X2010-14 or McLaren MP4-X, with their fighter style canopies. The power units are plenty powerful enough… they could do without the fuel flow limit: that would allow manufacturers to raise engine speeds & more than likely put the noise issue to bed. Then all we’d need is for Pirelli to produce tires these guys can push hard on, & we might actually have something cutting edge & exciting.

    1. My understanding of the fuel flow limit is to raise efficiency numbers, to see who can make the most power with a standard amount of potential input energy. Sort of like a handicap. Is this correct?

      1. Correct.

      2. ColdFly F1 (@)
        10th March 2016, 12:00

        Incorrect @saintdavid, or rather, incomplete.

        It is not so much a handicap, but more to direct R&D resources in the desired direction.

        Having said that, I would have preferred to keep fuel flow undefined; max fuel load and max RPM (at a higher level to get some scream back) should be enough.
        Would be interesting to see what the PU can come up with, and 1 less parameter to check for FIA.

    2. @Aldoid Really though, anybody can come up with a drawing. These concepts that involve a canopy would take billions to implement and risk bankrupting F1 and certainly eliminating all but the have teams, and would risk alienating one audience in hopes that another will follow.

    3. they could do without the fuel flow limit: that would allow manufacturers to raise engine speeds & more than likely put the noise issue to bed

      As we’ve discussed, removing the fuel limit would remove the point of the current engine formula, which is to drive efficiency. The noise will never be solved because the engines are turbo-charged.

      Fuel-flow isn’t an issue anyway – there is plenty of performance left in the power units even with the current flow rate, the drivers are just driving to the limits of the tyres.

  7. Seeing how the discussion on drivers’ head protection has moved in the direction of contemplating the canopy design, it is beginning to look more likely that in no distant future F1 cars will be designed and built in shapes and forms resembling the RedBull/Mclaren/Ferrari cars of the future. In fact it is quite amazing how fast we have gotten here, considering that i was barely a few years ago that RedBull, Ferrari and co presented their designs. Will there be a complete and radical overhaul or will the sport continue to experience gradual but steady changes towards the designs we saw.

    When F1 cars get to look like that, will it be a good idea to reduce further changes in the power unit and cut costs, seeing that cars will benefit a lot in earo? I guess covering the wheels alone reduces drag and increases vehicle’s speed which is what increased power output would have aimed to achieve in the first place.

  8. Kevin Queally
    10th March 2016, 8:10

    This device though in its current form would not have saved Henry Surtee’s life. The wheel in that case fell straight down and hit his helmet on top which would still happen with this halo

  9. I see a clear windscreen moulded into and rising from the nose. It is basically a grossly exaggerated version of other clear “flick ups” seen on many previous single seater. This version reaches a maximum height above, and just in front of, the drivers hands. It wraps around and tapers down to a point just outside of drivers hands. This new “windscreen” could be the product of some aerospace collaboration. (not exactly a first for F1) This design leaves an opening directly above the driver large enough that at one could be extricated from it. Coat the windscreen so it stays clear and fog free and you have a winner. Easy? Right?

  10. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
    10th March 2016, 8:18

    Something tells me Will Stevens is going to enjoy his LMP2 duties this year more than his Blancpain outings given the caliber of his teammate at WRT Audi…

  11. Since F1 is the pinnacle of engineering, it should not restrict itself to old ideas like canopies and cages (whether they are called Halo or not). A power shield is the perfect answer – no obstruction to visibility and it does not compromise access as it can be switched off easily.

    Maldonado might like another way, inspired by meteorite defence: A laser gun with computer targeting that would vaporize anything coming at the driver. Just imagine how a race would look like, I imagine this would massively improve F1’s popularity with computer games crowd.

    1. Plasma Shields, Northrop Grumman already has a paper on it.

      Sarcasms aside, open wheel racing seems to be in its last legs.

      The safety argument would always win to opposed to thrill and tradition.

  12. Webber seems to have too many opinions these days.

    1. Jimmi Cynic
      10th March 2016, 9:45

      Not bad for a 2nd opinion, eh

      1. I see what you did there… (chuckling smiley face thingy)

    2. @praxis I said the same the other day (I was shot down for it), as I was beginning to believe Webber was back in F1! He’s not; alas he still seems to think he is…

      1. @psynrg,

        Maybe he needs to balance out his messages with something different other than constant criticisms.

        Even today I found another of his F1 bashing in top gear site.

    3. RaceProUK (@)
      10th March 2016, 19:39

      You’re expecting a site dedicated to F1 not to quote a former F1 driver talking about F1 when F1 journalists ask him about F1?

      1. @raceprouk,
        What gave you the idea that my comment was “only” based on quotes from a site dedicated to F1 by a former F1 driver talking about F1 when F1 journalists ask him about F1?

        Doesn’t take any extra effort to find his quotes/interviews on the internet if you follow Motorsports in general & not only F1.

        1. RaceProUK (@)
          11th March 2016, 10:16

          OK, so what you want is for him to stop answering journalists’ questions. I’m sure if you ask him really nicely, he’ll stop, just for you.

          1. Hmm, getting kinda pointless to carry on here but…..

            He isn’t really only answering questions, is he? He is providing his opinions.

            And neither did I demanded that he stop, just for me.

            You seem to keep assuming a lot things, despite asking me not to do the same.

          2. RaceProUK (@)
            12th March 2016, 8:33

            OK, so you don’t like his comments, but you want them to continue to give you an excuse to moan about something that doesn’t matter.

  13. Hamilton’s objection on the grounds of aesthetics is trivial. The halo looks fine IMO, no worse than any of the other bits added to the basic chassis. The fighter style canopy wouldn’t work well due to extremes of heat and rain/misting problems, not to mention extraction of the driver after a crash or even giving simple first aid as in the case of Sainz accident last year.

    Formula one is about best possible performance, looks come a very distant second

  14. Seb and Lewis are correct between them IMO. The Ferrari mockup was freaking ugly, and F1 is not supposed to be ugly. It was just a mockup though – black and bulky and stuck on, to test vision.

    Seb is also correct, for me, that safety should take precedence.

    For once the circus is moving in a good way. Red Bull are taking their time to come up with the next step, and it will look better. After Halo it will come as a relief.

    It’s almost Bernie-esque.

    1. @lockup I would agree, I don’t think any driver on the grid would actually have a problem with the device if it wasn’t so aesthetically challenging. The idea of head protection in its current form has been on going for a number of years but this Halo seems to have take a leap from paper to production and possible regulation really quickly. We have seen many videos from the FIA of various head protection solutions being tested, often with tyres being fired at them but nothing on this Halo, so have the FIA even tested it effectiveness before making it public is most public way you can in F1.

      Maybe the FIA have taken a leaf out of Bernies book and decided to make this Halo appear as the forward idea knowing that it will receive the “backlash” that it has, when all along they want to implement a cockpit style solution, so when they drop the Halo for cockpit it will be like they are meeting the fans in the middle but really they get what they want.

      I happen to think that a cockpit solution not only looks better but is more effective across a range of possible accidents. All these solutions come with issues, the cockpit has many but this is F1 and those issues can be solved by the people in the paddock. I’m not sure they will ever be able to make the Halo concept pleasing or even indifferent.

      It’s an issue in F1 with a lot of emotion, which to be honest I have always thought should be left at the door when making decisions like this. People who feel emotional about a subject are very rarely impartial and balanced on a subject. John Surtees is an example of that, he lost his son in a tragic way and has worked really hard to educated and help others in the sport as well as trying to make change. While thats great I think his emotion makes it feel hard for him to be impartial about solutions and their drawbacks. Is the Halo concept and improvement on head protection as it stands now, well yes, but does it solve the issue, no. Does it introduce new issues? Almost certainly. Have these issues been discovered, discussed or addressed? Doubtful. They need to take more time to implement a solution and not try and rush it into the 2017 regulation because emotions are heightened on the subject at the moment.

      1. @woodyd91 There has been a video of the halo deflecting a tire. Personally I don’t think the halo has been rushed at all. I think concepts such as this and canopies have been on engineers’ drawing boards on and off since Senna died. Whose to say, if somehow they were to make a canopy work, which to me would mean changing the cars from the ground up at massive costs, be guaranteed to be any more aesthetically pleasing? That’s so subjective.

        I just don’t believe that seeing a halo on a Ferrari means this has been rushed and not looked at from all aspects. I think it is the opposite and that is WHY we have seen it on a car now.

        1. Meant to add…emotional yes…that is the very reason they are trying to save lives. Ie. Hard to remove the emotion from it and that doesn’t just apply strictly to those who have directly lost loved ones.

        2. @robbie I would be very interested to see a video of the Halo in it’s current form deflecting a tyre, the only video I have seen that has a tyre being deflected is a metal structure on the nose or designed to be on the nose, which isn’t the same as the Halo devices they are pushing forward with. A video would be helpful.

          “be guaranteed to be any more aesthetically pleasing? That’s so subjective.”

          You misunderstand what I’m saying, I’m not saying they should go for a canopy over a halo because it’s more pleasing to look at, just that in my opinion if the issues with a canopy such as a fire in an overturned car can be addressed then it would prove to be more effective than the Halo in a wider possible accidents.

          “that is the very reason they are trying to save lives.”

          I disagree, I don’t think they are trying to save live based on emotion, you don’t need to be emotional about a subject to try and improve it, but when you are emotional about a subject it can mean solutions that a flawed are put through because of the emotion behind it.

          It’s the problem with the “If it saves one life then it’s worth it”, well if it saves one life that great, but what about if takes one life because of an accident that wouldn’t of happened had it not been there, there is no way of knowing without prolonged testing how the Halo device will affect a drivers visibility on a grid full of cars doing 200+ mph, not to mention how a device like this works on a track by track basis. All we have is Kimi saying, “it’s ok” during a lap in testing at a very slow speed. That doesn’t seem to be to the basis for pushing forward with regulation change. Where is the FIA here? I mean we have heard nothing really from them. Where is the research? the testing? the issues they have found and how they have fixed those issues? Nothing at all, yet we have rumours they could bring the Halo in as soon as 2017.

          The FIA needs to come to the table with a solution that would have stopped all head related deaths in motorsport, not a couple of them because that’s not a solution to the problem. I’m not against head protection in F1 at all, Im not one of those fans that say oh well it’s dangerous, accept it or leave. No protect the drivers but in a way that works from a design and more importantly a function prospective. While the Halo may be a improvement, it doesn’t fully solve either of those points. It’s very amateurish & crude in it’s design and doesn’t ensure the head is protected against enough accident scenarios. The FIA can do better and it can do better now.


            Here’s the video I had in mind but perhaps you have seen it and don’t consider it relevant to what Kimi ran.

            No question I agree that if the issues with the canopy can be solved then they should go for it. I just think the issues are too big to solve at least in terms of slapping it on a current cockpit opening as we know it. I think to make a canopy work it would require a total car redesign at massive cost and massive redefinition of F1 as we know it. Otherwise I think Kimi would have been running something more akin to a canopy than the halo.

            I would suggest that the fact we saw this on Kimi’s car is an indication that indeed the FIA has been intimate with research and testing, or Ferrari wouldn’t have been allowed to try it. Just because we haven’t been privy to the discussions does not mean they don’t exist and that FIA are not serious.

            I don’t think anything is going to guarantee what you are asking of the FIA…certainly not ‘now’. I think the halo is a great way to add safety at relatively little cost. To get what you want is going to take a ground up redesign of F1 as we know it at massive cost and way more time than they can afford. I believe there is simply no way they are going to come up with a bolt-on canopy that meets every concern, without drastically changing the cars.

            If the halo doesn’t protect against enough scenarios, surely you don’t suddenly think drivers are in grave danger right now and for the last few decades? I suggest they already have pretty good protection, not perfect and it never will be, and the halo only adds to the safety in a feasible way right now. I think it is presumptuous to say it is amateurish and rushed and the FIA isn’t doing enough on this file, when we in our armchairs have no idea the work that went into it getting to the point of Kimi running a halo.

  15. Have to snigger that Horner has now worked out that ‘power will be a greater differentiator’ with his new hi-aero formula. If it’s not one thing, Christian, it’s another!

    Will they have a great year, and end up wishing the ’14-16 formula could continue?

  16. Keith Spain actually it’s going to pay 1million euro for the right to stream the Spanish GP.. 700 for the main language with TVE and 300 for Catalans with tv3

  17. I really hope Webber stops comparing F1 to WEC. It wasn’t uncommon for him to bring up “what I’m doing now” when he did F1 commentary for channel 10 and I hope he tones it back a bit for the larger audience of channel 4 or it could really turn the general public against him.

    It’s good for him to offer his opinion, but not everything has to relate back to the WEC… It almost sounds like subterfuge to get F1 fans to pay more attention to the WEC.

    1. RaceProUK (@)
      10th March 2016, 19:46

      What else is he going to compare it to? He’s not done Super Formula or IndyCar or anything like that.

      1. No One Better (@)
        10th March 2016, 20:54

        Ever the contrarian! Its plainly obvious Webber should dial it back a bit. Even the strictest teacher/instructor gives his student praise from time to time.

        1. RaceProUK (@)
          11th March 2016, 10:17

          And who says he doesn’t? Do you really think the media reports every word someone says? Well, I’ll let you in on a little secret: they only publish stuff that will get readers. And right now, criticising F1 gets readers, so that’s what gets published.

      2. He’s not done Super Formula or IndyCar or anything like that.

        Where’s Will Power when Mark needs him..? xD

  18. Fudge Ahmed (@)
    10th March 2016, 11:47

    That McLaren article is both amusing and bemusing. They stumbled upon a concept in the 60’s that would have made them instant front runners on debut and forgot about it? Unfortunately that air of coulda shoulda also seems prevalent in the modern F1 team, 2011 and 2012 spring to mind, one of the fastest car and driver pairings on the grid marred by operational and reliability mistakes at every turn. I think the teutonic work ethic of McLaren is their undoing at times.

    1. They want to be Teutonic but are a long way short. They should have a Teutonic work ethic with a British charisma but instead have a British work ethic with a Teutonic charisma.

  19. So Indy Car put Justin Wilson death down to a freak accident. Does this mean they will not be trying to come up with some form of Halo device? Just leave it to F1 to implement when the greater need is in Indy Cars.

    1. Indycar have been looking at & testing various head protection solutions alongside the FIA & both parties have been sharing data.

      As I understand it rather than a fully enclosed solution like a canopy or something like the Halo, The thing that Indycar are looking at is a raised screen that wraps around the front/sides of the cockpit which covers the drivers head but doesn’t fully enclose the cockpit.

      Think of a higher version of this-

      1. Just doesn’t seem very sturdy for deflecting anything other than small debris. Yes I know it could be bolstered, raised, what have you, and then you’re really affecting aero over the back of the car and hence rethinking of the front wings and floor comes into play. And big money and the motivation to make drastic changes.

      2. But IndyCar has no immediate plans to bring extra head protection in? Certainly not by 2017 like F1 is planning.

        1. Indycar are actually having discussions about getting something in place for 2017, They have held some early discussions with a company that makes the screens for NHRA top fuel dragsters.

          A problem that Indycar has is that to be as effective as possible any sort of head protection really needs to be an integral part of the car design rather than something they just bolt on. However Indycar currently don’t have any immediate plans to introduce a new car because right now most of the teams couldn’t afford the cost of having to buy a new car + all the spares required & that is limiting what the series can do & how soon they can do it.

  20. This model of halo sucks. It’s so bad.
    i imagine guys going uphill, somewhere like Eau Rouge, and their view of the course being blocked by the AWFUL design of this thing Ferrari tested.

    i believe Hamilton did bash the design of the thing also, not the idea of improving on security.

    This design may be safer for specific accidents, but may cause accidents itself too. It has big blindspots.

    1. Apparently KR and SV have said visibility is fine. I highly doubt FIA would approve and use a final product that creates blind spots and/or accidents.

    2. RaceProUK (@)
      10th March 2016, 19:53

      It has big blindspots.

      I’m glad we have people like you who have never sat in an F1 car to tell us how big the blindspots are instead of the word of professional drivers who have actually used the device.

      1. Blindspots occurred also with the side head protection that was also accused of being ugly but looking back I like the high sides more than when they were exposed. What Ferrari tested was a prototype for visibility the eventual design for head protection will go through many more design processes.

        Remember when at the end of the year some teams test with blocks on the nose to check visibility for next years design? Same thing here thats all its for and we do not criticise a nose we have not seen before and will not for months when they check visibility with these blocks.

        1. RaceProUK (@)
          11th March 2016, 10:18

          What Ferrari tested was a prototype for visibility the eventual design for head protection will go through many more design processes.

          A point I’ve made so many times already… but few listen… le sigh…

  21. Surtees is a wise fellow, and he should be listened to. The halo isn’t pretty, but neither are helmets or seatbelts or guardrails or gravel traps (some may disagree with that last one :>). Fashion should follow function in autosport, and if F1 adopts the halo it will set an influential tone for other series. This is a positive development in the sporting side of the circus that I for one will embrace.

  22. Fastest street circuit in the world? Oh dear, that’s exactly what they said about Valencia…

Comments are closed.