Brakes almost cost Rosberg win

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Mercedes came close to retiring Nico Rosberg’s car during the Australian Grand Prix.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

There’s no question what the feel-good story of yesterday’s race was: Haas scoring points on their debut.

I love their attitude. They know that there will be tough times and that this may be an aberration. But it doesn’t mean that they can’t be happy about it and use it to motivate themselves to become better.

I really like this team. And yes, as an American, it is special too. But as an American with French ancestry, it is double-special that Romain Grosjean did so well today. He seems like a decent guy, being a husband and a father. To me, this is what is great about motor sport – stories and people like this.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Gary Richardson, Gaz, Thomahawk_93 and Thomas Martin!

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

Three-times champion Ayrton Senna was born on this day in 1960.

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.

59 comments on “Brakes almost cost Rosberg win”

  1. John Rymie (@)
    21st March 2016, 0:18

    Pinnacle of Motorsport, not so fast…

    I know I’m beating a dead horse but the FIA/Bernie needs to get their premier championship sorted.

    Qualifying (although the biggest) wasn’t the only sign of complete dysfunction this weekend. The FIA reversed itself on 2 other points this weekend…Sunday morning no less. Driver Visor tear offs and radio strategy communication were also reversed/altered moments before the race.

    These “technical” notices by Charlie Whiting could have been delivered and then received feedback from the teams (and altered if need be) over the winter…the fact that all 3 were altered the morning of the first race of the year shows that we need to stop calling F1 the pinnacle of motorsport…unless we’re talking about dysfunction.

    1. ColdFly F1 (@)
      21st March 2016, 5:16

      @johnnyrye, you’re absolutely right about the (less than) amateurish management by FIA and FOM.

      But don’t take that away from the sport itself.
      F1 is still the pinnacle of Motorsport. The engineers have created a super car which gained seconds over last year under the same rules. The 1.6L engine with limited revs has them only a whisker off the lap record. Alonso walks away unhurt after a major shunt. Racing by 22 men is at the top of Motorsports. And there’s a lot more to be proud of.
      If only the FIA would stand up and show that they can run a series like this, and FOM to focus on how to present and sell this to the masses.

      1. F1 is not a sport, it is an entertainment of fast cars going round a track. Real sports reward success and do not re-write rules to hobble the winning combatants. The reason for the insane qually change was to ‘improve the show’ and stop the fastest getting on pole. I cannot workout why they just don’t pull names out of a hat for grid position. That would be more exciting.
        F1 is about the TEAM, not just a driver in a car. Gagging the engineers is stupid as their input is necessary. But to make cars crash out or retire to conjure up a new winner we have this stupid rule. Children in the playground could make better decisions and be more consistant.

        1. RaceProUK (@)
          21st March 2016, 17:33

          The reason for the insane qually change was to ‘improve the show’ and stop the fastest getting on pole.

          Eliminating the slowest car every 90 seconds means the fastest cars don’t get pole? You do realise how little sense that makes, right?

          1. The reason for the changes was to stop Mercedes from getting Pole Position. Period.

          2. RaceProUK (@)
            22nd March 2016, 19:18

            The plan was to stop the fastest cars getting pole by eliminating the slowest car every 90 seconds?

            Think it through.

      2. John Rymie (@)
        21st March 2016, 14:45

        I was trying to make a point more than anything to be honest technically F1 is fighting with WEC for the title “pinnacle of motorsport”, but other aspects? I would dispute that vehemently.

        If F1 wants to continue to claim to be the pinnacle of motorsport, they have to be the pinnacle in all aspects (or at the very least the majority of them).

        Currently F1 is scoring “own goals” far too often to be considered the pinnacle of anything, besides dysfunction, as i mentioned.

        Does any of this mean im going to quit watching, absolutely not. I love F1, but it needs to sort itself out.

  2. Loved seeing Haas do so well, Gene Haas struck me as someone who didn’t quite know what he was getting into, but I’m glad to have been proven wrong. First time a Dallara-designed car has scored points in F1 since 1992, I believe.

    1. pastaman (@)
      21st March 2016, 11:55

      I’m not sure what gave you that impression, it was probably the most measured and sensible approach one could take in joining F1. It took them 6 years and every step of the way he claimed that points would be a luxury and simply finishing a race would be the main target.

  3. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
    21st March 2016, 0:35

    Pleas Mercedes, stop with these supposed race ending issues. They seem to happen at most races and yet they don’t retire often.

    1. Actually i do remember that when Vettel was romping up victories he was also continuously having non-race-ending technical issues. At least that what was told after the race to us :P I guess it just shows that these cars are always on edge of breaking down.

    2. The most notable thing about it for me @nmsi, @come-on-kubica, is that we only heard afterwards, because the team and Rosberg couldn’t talk about it, as Rosberg noted the problem and amended it before it got as critical as Perez’ front breaks that led his team to tell him to fix the ‘critical’ situation.

      Exactly why I don’t really care for the current balance of allowed/not allowed radio conversations, it was too quiet on the radio. I do think it’s good drivers can decide what to do themselves, and the engineers tend to being a bit too careful, but I want that internal team comms. that Horner talked about :)

  4. Thanks for the QOTD!

  5. It would be interesting to see the footage from the FIA’s front facing camera on Alonso’s car.

    1. +1 maybe they’ll put the video up in a couple of days or at least for the end of season dvd, don’t see why not.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        21st March 2016, 5:19

        Pretty sure we saw that. @sward28, @mantresx
        At least until he hit GUT.

        1. @coldfly No, we mean the new “safety” cameras that were introduced this year, you know the ones that point at the driver’s head and record at 400fps all the time:

        2. lol I was confused @sward28 did want to see the regular “front facing” camera, no problem its on youtube somewhere but anyway I’m really interested in the footage from the new safety camera

          1. @mantresx, given the footage from those cameras are meant to be for the benefit of the FIA and its medical team to assess the severity of an accident, I suspect that it will be retained by them rather than being issued to the public.

          2. @mantresx I was referring to the new “front facing” camera the FIA put in after Alonso’s accident during testing last year. Anon may be right, however would still love to see it.

  6. I feel so bad for manor, Rio’s fans are destroying team spirit and started to threat me and other People Who was impressed with werhlein.

    1. I haven’t heard anything negative regarding Werhlein, and yes, there were some negative comments about Haryanto, but that goes with him being a rookie driver. Other drivers got negative comments, and some of them are much more experienced than he is. I don’t see how Haryanto’s fans could be destroying the team spirit, unless Manor pay too much attention to social media. Each team pays some attention to social media, but not enough that it would destroy a team. After all, Manor operate on a very tight budget, so they shouldn’t be getting stressed by some ill-informed opinions.
      It was very disappointing that there wasn’t an immediate announcement by Manor as to the reason for the retirement, especially if it wasn’t his fault, because the delay made one wonder if the problem was Haryanto and not the car. While there was a subsequent report that there was a problem with the car, the fact that this retirement happened during a Red Flag situation makes it look like it wasn’t just the car. My advice is next time Haryanto retires, he has to be seen sitting in the car (even if it has no wheels), lots of arm waving, a few theatricals, etc so at least everyone knows he wanted to be racing.

    2. As expected from majority of Indonesian fans..

    3. @marussi Yeah. Bunch of ‘uneducated-barely knowing F1’ fans. But it’s was very easy to calm them down.

  7. Glad the teams agreed on reverting to the old qualifying system. That qualifying session was the biggest waste of time to have aired on television. I think a few people in the FIA and FOM, who fronted this change should be fired as well. If the heads can rolls when teams are underperforming, why can’t people who govern the sport be kicked out for poor management?

    1. Ah ha! “That qualifying session was the biggest waste of time to have aired on television.” That is the crucial point: for those that didn’t watch it live the time wasting made no difference. When I went to read the results of Qualifying, I found lots of the important or interesting stuff, like Hamilton’s 50th pole position, were overlooked, and instead people were lambasting the Qualifying system over something that I have no understanding of what the problem was. Maybe there were cars parked in the garages, but is that important? At the end of qualifying a start grid was determined, and that is what mattered. In fact, as I recall there weren’t any crashes at the start, so one could argue the start grid was more or less right.
      All that said, I do think we should have kept the old system, but whether it is one system or the other makes no difference to me (at least for now).

      1. @drycrust well, if you see qualifying as just a way to form a grid, then I guess you have a point. A lot of people, however, like qualifying for other reasons. See it as a display of ultimate single-lap speed. It doesn’t win points, but it can be thoroughly exciting to see a pack of drivers going all-out at the same time to try and produce the best possible lap as the timer counts down towards 0.

        This new system simply produced no excitement at all. Well, maybe it was interesting to see them all out in the beginning and doing one hot lap, but after that any excitement was gone. Near empty track the more the timer counted down. Nobody on track with minutes to go in Q3. That is not what people want to see.

        See it as a movie that has the culmination of excitement in the first 15 minutes and then dies down towards the end. Or a song that has its climax after 30 seconds and then fizzles out.

        1. @mattds I guess Qualifying could be considered a display of ultimate single lap speed, although there are often complaints of being impeded and such like with the 2015 model.
          One could argue since the Ferraris’ overtook the Mercedes’ at the start of the race, that is an indication maybe the order of the grid wasn’t quite right at the front, and the nearest we got to a collision was between the two Mercedes cars, which again suggests maybe the order wasn’t quite right for the start, but those sort of things happen regularly.
          As I said, I didn’t watch Qualifying, and that was mostly because I didn’t want to pay to watch it. I preferred to save my money to watch the race.
          At the end of the day, a starting grid was determined, no cars crashed getting that grid, and the grid was more or less right.
          I prefer the 2015 system, but whether they continue with one or the other doesn’t bother me at the moment.

        2. “A display of ultimate single-lap speed.” Couldn’t agree more.

          This is why I think we should go back to single-lap qualifying, high adrenaline, extreme pressure, BUT, the time-span needs to be MUCH, MUCH shorter compared to the “old” single-lap qualifying. What we need is more frequent displays of ultimate single-lap speed :), and who wouldn’t be up for that? :D.

          The key to any successful qualifying session I feel, is in how often you RESET the lap-times back to “0.” By regularly resetting the lap-times, you are forcing the guys to keep going out on track, and just as importantly, you are forcing the guys to go as fast as possible whilst they are out on track :).

          I’ve become not the biggest fan of knocking cars out, more for sentimental reasons in that it doesn’t really help the smaller teams, what with struggling for TV time, money, sponsorship and what have you. I feel we should be doing all we can to help those guys out. Realistically, they’re not going to trouble the big guys are they, so what’s the harm in having them out on circuit as much as everybody else?

          For that reason, I’ve always kind of liked the “average” system, so I think, all things considered, I’d offer up this qualifying format;

          1.) A qualifying “hour,” Q1, Q2, Q3, and a new Q4. 1 single-lap run per session, no knock-outs.
          2.) Each session 12mins long, with a 3-4min break inbetween (turnaround cars, TV, adverts etc).
          3.) Times at the end of each session are “banked,” and a new one must be set in the next session.
          4.) All times are averaged in real-time session to session. At the end of Q4, we have our final grid.

          I think that ticks all the boxes? ALL cars are regularly forced out on track, and forced to be fast whilst out on track (you’ve got 12 laps, 4 “hot-laps,” from the olden days) by virtue of the times being regularly RESET (every 12mins). Every lap counts, mistakes are punished (due to the single-lap + averaging components). There’s enough time for teams to turnaround cars between sessions. Ample TV opportunities for ALL teams.

          I’m bound to be biased but I really don’t see too much wrong with that. Any complaints?…

          1. Depends. Are you telling the cars when they’re allowed on track (unsporting as environmental / track conditions change, giving one driver an advantage over another through no fault / work of their own), or are you letting them choose when to go on track?

            Really, though, this is overly complex regardless. It’s pretty universally agreed that the previous qualy system produced excellent viewing more often than not.

          2. I’d send cars out every 20>30secs, fastest from the previous session runs last in the next, so whenever they run HAS been earned and IS a result of their own work. Being able to guarantee TV time to your sponsors is also extremely valuable.

            The 20>30secs means ALL cars are out in 7-11mins. On the rare occasion that we do get a rain-shower in the middle of a mini-session, stop the session, reset the times, start again. With a random act of nature I think it’s entirely understandable to abandon the running order aspect in this scenario. Keep the single-lap though.

            I’m OK with ditching the “average” component. 12 laps, 4x 15mins sessions, single-lap run in each, running order as above, fastest starts first, slowest starts last. Done.

            I’m not OK with the knock-out aspect. I don’t see what it really achieves in the bigger picture. The slowest guys are always going to be the slowest guys, whichever qualifying system you choose, so you might aswell maximise every car’s time out on track IMO, and in turn maximise the commercial opportunity for that team.

  8. F1 2015 had the core game really good. The Graphics, sounds, immersion, physics and the ai were all on point. If they can take that and really push to make the game better, then it could be really something. But there’s so much they should do but inevitably won’t. The study shows they have the ideas. I just hope they actually decide to do them.

    1. I’m 33 and a dinosaur when it comes to gaming (I peaked at Goldeneye on the N64!), but I am still really angry that there was no 2 player split screen mode on F1 2015. Am I so old that I am one of the only people left who wants to play the game with someone in the same room as me? Does everyone just play on their own now, online? I am genuinely saddened.

    2. physics? please and go play assetto corsa and drive the McLaren mp4-13 and then you’ll know that f1 2015 physics engine is super arcade. f1 2015 is nothing more than an arcade game with online lag and stupid bugs. ‘sidepod glitch’ just to name one flaw in the physics engine. the ai are good, i’ll give them that, but an f1 game shouldn’t just be a ‘game’ it should be a simulator, one should get enjoyment out of just driving the car, even if on an empty track.

      Geoff’s crammond’s f1 grand prix series had better physics than any of the codemasters f1 games, and Crammond’s games came out on pc in the early 2000s at the time when EA got the f1 game license and made rubbish arcade games, just like codemasters.

      heck, Geoff Crammond’s games even had realistic changeable weather conditions, it was so fun driving on a drying track, trying to stay on the dry line, if not, you lost so much grip and spun, guessing when to switch to dry tyres, and the ai were alright for that time, but for nowadays obviously they’re a bit stupid, but they gave you a fair fight.

      Geoff crammond’s game had trackside replay cameras before any other game, it had onboard replay cameras for every car before any other game. it had in game telemetry, where you could do a couple of hot laps and compare then on speed graphs, gear shift graphs, ride height graphs, steering input graphs, throttle/brake graphs. the car setup was very complex and intricate, and every change made a difference to handling. and there were detailed explanations of what each setting did and what effect it would have on the car.

      heck, grand prix legends even had more realistic physics than f1 2015

      1. I absolutely agree. Crammond’s Grand Prix series was by far the best F1 simulation we had. Obviously, it’s 15 years old now, but if that was possible back then, it shows just how bad the Codemasters’ game is for something that came out 15 years later. The kind of game you could make today is far beyond what we are being given by Codemasters. As you’ve said, it’s just an arcadey pastime.

        I remember when I got Codemasters’ F12010 five years ago. I was so excited to try this new, lauded, official F1 game, but when I started the game I was absolutely disappointed with how shallow it is. Even menus. It feels like you are playing on a coin machine in an arcade. It doesn’t even feel like the game you own. If feels like some shallow fun you play to kill a few minutes. There’s no depth to the game whatsoever. And all that before you start realizing just how bad the physics is.

        So glad I had an opportunity to play Geoff Crammond’s games back in the day.

        1. you know, if you still have a gp3 or gp4 disk, there is a committed modding community who have modded the game to nearly all f1 seasons. they’re really quick to post updates on car liveries and new tracks and there are a few addons which you can get (all free of course) which put the fia timing graphics on screen.

          it’s really cool. I myself do sound modding, and post car sounds for people to try out, depending on which season theyre simulating.

          a couple of videos to show you what kind of mods are available for gp3

          Vanilla GP3: No mods

          2014 Mod: Ferrari and redbull (Renault sound isn’t perfect)

          1995 mod :)

          to install these mods requires some knowledge of the already installed gp3 files and a decrypted gp3.exe which can also be downloaded at the modding site

          but the knowledge is well worth it!! :)

  9. I am surprised Mercedes didn’t opt for full blown axle.

  10. “McNish: That @alo_oficial accident is another reason to continue to push for cockpit safety, right front wheel on the cockpit in front of his head”

    So exactly how it was designed to work? If wheel stays tethered, there’s no physical possibility for it to reach driver.

    1. Murray McAllan
      21st March 2016, 10:48

      And It would be interesting to see how Alonso could have got out of the cockpit unaided with a halo fitted!

        1. Ya know, with all due respect to Jenson Button, because he is a mature, intelligent driver, I suspect if he’d been hanging upside down in his car after spinning multiple times around multiple axes, the first thing on his mind (after “am I bleeding, am I broken?”) would be “GET ME THE HELL OUT OF HERE!”.

          That certainly would have been my first priority. If Alonso had to remain in the car until it was rolled back over, that’s a problem.

          What bothers me about the Halo approach is that it’s at best, a 60% solution– but everyone’s ignoring the missing 40%, and everyone’s in a rush to gloss over any potential (and completely uninvestigated) potential negatives by screaming “SAFETY!!!”.

          I want to see a computer simulation of Massa’s accident in 2009 with the Halo in place– because I think it would have killed him (I think the spring would have deflected downwards from the impact with the halo).

          F1, as usual, is completely ignoring the idea of unintended consequences.

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            21st March 2016, 17:39

            That certainly would have been my first priority. If Alonso had to remain in the car until it was rolled back over, that’s a problem.

            I can imagine how being stuck in a car that’s not on fire a long way from a race track with no cars on it would be a problem; he might have needed the loo!

  11. Looking at the angle of Alonso’s overturned car, I am wondering how he would have been able to lift the canopy and crawl out of the car had the car been fitted with a canopy. There is almost nothing one could do to lift a hinged canopy being weighed down by the weight of the car and within the small confinement of space between the car and the solid ground.
    Alonso was able to make a quick getaway before assistance came, because nothing was in his way.

    1. One of JB’s points was that FA didn’t ‘have to’ get out of the car. He could have waited for help. Therefore a canopy would have been fine. Wait for them to come and flip the car back on it’s feet. My whole thing on that is, and will remain…what if they are concerned about a neck injury? Flipping the car over to get at the driver might have just paralysed him for life. Imho, they must, at a minimum, be able to access and stabilize a drivers head and neck, with whatever halo/canopy system they end up finalizing.

      1. The canopy system is long overdue without any doubt but it throws up a lot of questions that need satisfactory answers. Button’s suggestion about Alonso or any other driver waiting till help arrived worries me in the sense that the kind of accident that Alonso had could very likely have resulted in a fire outbreak and the final resting position of the wreck does not require someone to sit in the car and wait for help to arrive.
        I do not subscribe to the idea that any driver, upon moving his body and realising that he has not been rendered immobile due to a crash, should sit in the car and wait for help to arrive. The person should get out while he still can.

        1. Yeah for sure they might as well get out if they can. In general, the way I think of this is in worst case scenarios. What do they do if they have a canopy, even open topped but with a windscreen ahead and to the sides of the driver like RBR has proposed, the car is on it’s lid, and the driver has a severe head and/or neck injury? They MUST be able to deal with the worst scenario of having to stabilize the driver’s head and neck before they budge the car and potentially sever the spinal chord. I think they must use this scenario of an upside-down car on fire and an unconscious driver, in their design, testing, and finalization of a halo/canopy.

      2. RaceProUK (@)
        21st March 2016, 17:40

        Flipping the car over to get at the driver might have just paralysed him for life. Imho, they must, at a minimum, be able to access and stabilize a drivers head and neck, with whatever halo/canopy system they end up finalizing.

        That’s where the halo holds the advantage: a medic can reach around it to fit a neck brace.

  12. The elimination-qualifying could have been so much better with a bit of foresight.

    To make an elimination qualifying system work, you need to RESET ALL OF THE TIMES on a more frequent basis, and allow drivers on hot-laps to finish those hot-laps.

    If you reset ALL of the lap-times back to “0” every 3 minutes say, you’re forcing ALL the cars to be consistently out on track. If they don’t have a lap-time to their name, they’re out.

    That would have worked better. Maybe 3 minutes is too short a space of time. Maybe 5 minutes would be better, and you eliminate 3 drivers at a time. There’s all kinds of permutations. But the basic philosophy of resetting ALL of the times is good.

    I don’t have a problem with the concept of elimination qualifying, but I most definitely did have a problem with the way it was implemented.

    1. I had thoughts along the same lines. The cars must be on track for the whole session on a single set of tyres, the cars leave the pits at the start of the session according to the reverse finishing order of the previous race (this would give the slower cars less traffic and possibly jumble up the grid a bit) and the clock starts the moment the first car crosses the start/finish line. After 5mins there is an elimination of the slowest car, at which point all lap times are deleted and another elimination will take place after a further two minutes, lap times are then deleted again and so on and so forth. Same procedure for Q2 and Q3, with the session length proportional to how many cars are remaining after 5mins.

      Another idea of mine is to have the final two cars at the end of Q3 form up on the start finish line for a single lap shootout. Standing start, low fuel, no other cars on track, winner takes pole. That could be awesome.

      1. Another favourite of mine to get mixed-up grids is that qualifying should be the first session of the weekend on a Saturday morning after a 15/20 minute warm-up session (for the drivers to get their eye in). Practice 1 and 2 would then take place on Saturday afternoon. This means that the track conditions would be relatively unknown (which is when we get mixed up grids and unpredictable racing) and the teams can set the cars up according to grid position and with the knowledge of where there direct competitors are etc. It could induce huge tactical variation in race strategy. P3 would take place on Sunday morning similar to the old warm-up sessions. Condensing the weekend would ensure more fans would be able to attend races as they would need less time off work etc. Less time away for the team members and we get the variation in grid and strategy that we’ve been trying to achieve all along.

        Now, how do I send this to the strategy group?

        1. The easiest system I’ve come across for mixing up the grids is taking reverse W/C order, a driver’s qualifying position, and then using the average to allocate their slot on the grid.

          Very simple, as we speak, ROS reverse W/C number would be 22, HAM 21, VET 20 etc. When they qualify in Bahrain, let’s say they end up in that order, so ROS 1st, HAM 2nd, VET 3rd, FOM software would simply do;

          Reverse W/C order number + qualifying position divided by 2. That would give you a decimal and through putting those numbers in ascending order for the entire grid, you would get your grid order.

          Looks complicated but it’s really not. Upshot is, those boys would be smack bang together in the midfield on the starting grid come race day.

      2. The problem with that is that we don’t have the tyres to stand that amount of punishment over that distance. If we did, I’d be 100% with you on that suggestion.

        The single-lap shootout is more up my street tbh. I like the drivers with high adrenaline under extreme pressure having to get that lap in, or they’re out. The elimination format really relies on the teams making the mistake to mix up the grids, and I kind of have a fundamental misgiving about that. I think it should be the drivers making the mistakes, not the teams.

        So having said that, I would like single-lap qualifying, but I’d like it condensed into a much shorter time-frame, so as to negate the “old single-lap qualifying” issues, and at the same time bring in the pro’s of the Q1, Q2, Q3 system, and to a similar extent, the timed elimination system.

        There’s a happy balance in there somewhere, not quite sure where it is atm.

    2. Three minutes is too short– it’s one out lap, and one lap. At Spa, it’s not even one lap. In fact, the lap records for Sepang, Bahrain, Shanghai, Silverstone, Spa, Singapore, Suzuka, Sochi, Austin, and Abu Dhabi are all > 90 seconds.

      If they really want people out on track for the whole session, you have to make it a good idea from the team’s point of view to be out the whole session, or it won’t happen. There needs to be a qualifying tire for all three sessions– preferably a set of tires with good grip, and no degradation.

      1. Which is why I said;

        “Maybe 3 minutes is too short a space of time. Maybe 5 minutes would be better, and you eliminate 3 drivers at a time. There’s all kinds of permutations.”


  13. I don’t understand why Mercedes thought to retire Rosberg’s car because of an overheating caliper? If it was for safety concerns they could just have gone on the radio and told him to manage it?

    1. Nope. They can tell him to retire, but not to manage. Brilliant, eh?

      1. Really? How weird is that..

        Another weird thing is that the warnings on the dash about caliper temp weren’t set up to trigger until situation was critical. One would think they’d have automated these kinds of things after the radio ban.

  14. This wasn’t on this article, but I thought I would bring this up in reference to what Allan McNish said about cockpit safety: The exposed driver’s head is, quite simply an unfair, avoidable danger. That tire nearly hit Alonso in the head- which would almost certainly have gravely injured him. Fighter jet-style cockpit canopies that entirely envelop the cockpit need to be put in with immediate effect from 2017 onwards. That Halo thing is not good enough; it actually looks unnecessarily dangerous and will only make things more difficult. The fact that F1 cars do not have these canopies to protect the driver’s heads from things like flying car parts, tires or other debris is stupidly and pathetically irresponsible.

    Quite honestly, I think that circuits should be more challenging and much less forgiving if drivers make a mistake. When I say less forgiving, that means the margin for error between going through a fast corner right and going off and being out of the race and most likely crashing is much thinner than it is now. There should be corners like the old Tamburello or the old Stowe and Club corners- but with the ideal safety measures that protect drivers, marshals and spectators from being injured (the old Tamburello did not have proper safety measures; they should have put a tire wall there) But when any participant in or at a motor race is injured- in this case, the drivers, marshals or spectators is injured- that is a whole different matter. If a driver crashes even as horrendously as Alonso did yesterday, he should always be able to walk away without injury.

Comments are closed.