Aeroscreen ‘won’t save anybody’ – Ecclestone

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone doesn’t believe the Aeroscreen cockpit protection design will save lives.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Yesterday’s On The Day brought back doubly painful memories for one reader:

I remember the 2006 European Grand Prix very well. It was the first F1 race that I was supposed to visit, having watched every race from the couch for ten years. I had got the tickets and booked everything else for the trip but then I had an acute appendicitis, which had to be surgically removed. So I could not go anywhere. Schumacher was my favourite driver back then so it was painful to see his victory on TV, knowing that I should be celebrating it at Nurburgring.

I kept watching F1 on TV, kept dreaming and my dream to go to an F1 race came true three years later, at the 2009 German Grand Prix, which was held at… Nurburgring. I have been to four more Grands Prix since then.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Miguel, Tororosso and Paul Stilwell!

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

F1’s last race in Turkey was won on this day five years ago by Sebastian Vettel:

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.

102 comments on “Aeroscreen ‘won’t save anybody’ – Ecclestone”

  1. Tigerskin
    8th May 2016, 0:19

    if they touch the DNA of F1 i wont watch it anymore… and i think lots of people thinks just like me, and dont start with jules bianchi because this devices couldn’t save him

    1. What even is the “DNA of F1”? That’s just a lazy argument to not improve anything just out of fear of change.

      1. Tigerskin
        8th May 2016, 0:32

        Open cockpit racing since the times of farina and fangio

        1. The cockpits would still be open, I don’t see how Aeroscreen changes anything in that regard. And F1 cars have had screens before

          1. But….but….but….I want to be a hysterical 12 year old girl! Don’t take that away from me! I DEMAND my right to be a hysterical 12 year old little girl. I wanna whine about F1 tradtion..WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

            You whiners need to grow up. “Real men don’t need windscreens….or a HANS Device…or seatbelts….or even helmets!!!!”

            Jesus H Christ, what a bunch of whiney twits.


          2. Haha, honestly, the thing that makes me laugh the most is, seriously, look at the Brabham.

            List the differences between modern F1 cars and it. If the screen even registers on your top ten I’ll eat my hat.

            F1 cars now have almost nothing to do with the cars of the 70’s, let alone the bathtubs of the 50’s. And what about going back further? Surely tradition doesn’t start at 1950? What about the old motor carriages?

            But now if we want to put a screen in front of the drivers head to protect them, that’s where we will draw the line?

            F1 fans are amazing.

          3. @mike

            You sir, are a hero.
            If pride hasn’t saved a life, i wonder how far back is tradition.

            Dna of F1 is ruthless speed, unforgiving skill and unwavering determination.

          4. @faulty I’d also add constant changing and evolving.

          5. @ciaran, Thanks for bringing some sense to the discussion. You’re spot on.

          6. And what about the “open wheel”bit? Isn’t F1 supposed to be the premier open wheel racing series? That should be more “part of the F1 DNA” than some sort of windscreen, yet we see aerofoils in front of the front wheels that are there to deflect the air from around the front wheels, reducing the drag for the car at the front, and there aren’t complaints about that!
            As I understand it, the air deflection is there to reduce lift on the front wheels, so supposedly they are an essential safety feature, but there should be other ways to reduce lift without having to obstruct the front of the wheel. So “safety” is the reason we allow aerofoils, and yet “safety” isn’t a good enough reason for windscreens?
            The car that gets punished the most by the open wheels is the car in front, while those following it have the benefit of less drag, which is supposed to be good for racing.
            If you look at the images of early F1 races, the cars often had windscreens and no aerofoils around the front wheels, so how can having a windscreen now be suddenly considered as sacrilege, and the very thing that is sacrilege, the reduction of drag on the front wheels, isn’t?

          7. Fangio drove a “closed wheel” Mercedes F1 car in the fifties. It was a special for tracks like Monza, but an F1 car with the wheels covered did race.

        2. Missing the fact that Fangio’s cars had windscreens. Do a Google image search for “Mercedes Benz F1 Fangio” if you don’t believe me. You may also notice that his W196 didn’t always have open wheels.

          Perhaps you need to research the “glory days” of F1 before you use it as an excuse for nothing to change.

          1. Duncan Snowden
            8th May 2016, 17:53

            In fairness, the “Monza” W196 led to open wheels being written into the rules. Which, as far as I understand, was done on purely cosmetic grounds. But in general, I agree.

        3. But these cars even with the aeroscreen will remain open-cockpit? Anyhow, windscreens in F1 are hardly a new thing either because they too have been around since the ‘good ol’ days’.

          As far as I’m concerned, having the aeroscreen does absolutely nothing to the ‘DNA of F1’, whatever that may be. My interpretation of it is that there are drivers, in cars (some made by manufacturers, some made by privateers) all with their own unique quirks and they go racing. Simple as that. If anything, unfair overtaking gimmicks takes away from what I believe the ‘DNA of F1’ is than a windscreen.

        4. Michael Brown (@)
          8th May 2016, 19:22

          But what if closed cockpits are faster?

          1. @mbr-9

            Now THAT is the interesting question! If it actually lets the cars be faster…THEN what do the complaints amount to??? Is F1 the pinnacle of motorsports or not?

          2. @ Michael Brown , that is exactly my same point of view. Aerodynamics Common sense say closed cockpits are much better for aerodynamic development.

            Just look at Adrian Newey’s “Unrestricted Formula 1″concept. It makes sense.

            Open wheels is concerning the wheels. I don’t get why people get so upset about. The canopy of an F1 car can look gorgeous and nothing similar to the LM P1 cars of Lemans and endurance racing.

            Personally I think the Mclaren and Red Bull canopies in their concepts (not the aeroscreen, which is an in between solution) look gorgeous.

            I know we all like to see drivers helmets, but honestly they are so bland and lack so much personality right now, I would say a canopy with a distinct driver paint job on a part of the car for fans to identify each driver would look better.

            The pinnacle of motorsport should be that: the faster cars, the faster drivers. Each year, track records beaten. Fantastic battles between teams and drivers. Crashes are unavoidable and part of the excitement and “show” but deaths due to archaic measures both aerodynamically as well as in terms of safety don’t make sense in XXI century Formula one.

          3. Michael Brown (@)
            9th May 2016, 20:27

            @sergio-perez We could still distinguish between drivers, in a way similar to WEC with closed cockpits. Take a look at the Manor in WEC. One car has a red stripe across the part of the windscreen where it meets the roof. The other has a black one.

            I like the idea of letting the driver customize the rooftop, but I feel and argument would be made for taking away from sponsor space, or number space if they choose to go the route of NASCAR and put numbers there.

            As for closed wheels, there are two positives. The first, of course, is aerodynamic benefit – less turbulence. The second, is overtaking safety. There would be no chance of wheels interlocking, and a collision there would cause one wheel to go over another, like Raikkonen’s crash in Austria last year.

            We would lose the brilliance of an overtake involving interlocked wheels, though. That’s a price I’m willing to pay. I’m referring to Raikkonen on Schumacher in Brazil 2012.

    2. Jimmy Price
      8th May 2016, 0:32

      10 bucks if you can describe the DNA of F1 that everyone here agrees with.

      1. @Jimmy Price WWE on wheels. Where is my money?

    3. Craig Wilde
      8th May 2016, 0:48

      It’s a rather pointless, deliberately distracting argument. Besides, everything needs to evolve or it’ll just die off.

      1. F1 is far safer than Moto GP, and I don’t see the Moto GP riders asking for bubbles to be put around them.
        One of the big attractions of F1 is that you can see the driver. F1 should remain open cockpit and open wheeled.
        If these guys had to catch public transport or drive to work everyday for a living they would have more chance of dying in an accident than they would out on the track.

        1. Yup.

        2. @ivz

          It depends. For me, I think of these names,

          Simoncelli, Senna, Bianchi.

          I, do not ever want to add to that list again. If I have a choice, between adding another name and adding a screen. I know what I will ask for.

          As it stands now, a driver being hit to the head is a when, not an if.

        3. Apart from of course, the their leathers were changed updated to include airbags 2 / 3 years ago, and the riders are currently campaigning against the aero add ons that have appeared this year as they act like knifes, so I suppose the riders actually did ask for bubbles to put around them

          Comparing F1 safety to motogp safety is like comparing horse riding to cycling, motogp is a dangerous sport, but their requirements are different to f1, they have larger run offs, don’t race at tracks like monoco, gravel traps work for them and slows them down before.

          Moto GP is working as hard as F1 on safety, it’s just a different sport

        4. @ivz, since you bring up Moto GP riders, perhaps part of the reason why they are not asking for a “bubble” to be put round them, as you so pithily describe it, is because the riders use suits with inbuilt airbags that automatically deploy when the rider is thrown from the bike. The riders for Honda’s factory team have been riding suits equipped with internal airbags since at least 2011

          1. That is really cool.

            Thank you.

        5. They just have titanium and Kevlar reinforced racing suits, with a huge amount of padding on the back… 20 or 30 years ago riders who went down often stayed down due to broken bones.

        6. @ivz

          More people die defusing bombs in Iraq than in F1….so it’s all good in F1!

          Do you have a logic problem???

      2. Wonderbadger
        8th May 2016, 7:55

        Hmm, Bernie never seems to evolve…

        1. He does rather resemble a very old, silverback chimp LOL

    4. You know whose DNA didn’t change?


      1. And they ruled for millions of millions of years because of it. And you know who’s DNA did change. the 99.999% of species that have since died out. Dumb analogy.

        1. Dinosaurs’ DNA changed plenty over the millions of years they were around. The reason ANYTHING survived is adaptability. Even creatures that have been around for hundreds of millions of years (sharks, turtles, etc.) have survived because they evolve. You’re both wrong.

        2. Well that’s blatantly nonsense. Are you saying that every species of dinosaur existed unchanged for 170 million years?

      2. @casjo There’s a difference between an animal changing itself to be more suitable to the environment and the environment changing to unfairly prefer a group of animals it previously didn’t.

        A large heavenly object hitting the Earth thereby creating a huge crater was probably the latter.

        (Oh and you’re saying the dinosaurs’ DNA didn’t change, and yet you want to be taken seriously?)

    5. Well, Justin would still died anyway..

      As expected from a senile Bernie..

    6. Vanderspace01
      8th May 2016, 2:08

      And Ayrton?

      1. Didn’t he die from the suspension penetrating the chassis … something the FIA have already worked on

        1. Jimmy Price
          8th May 2016, 18:26

          No, that’s not what caused this injury. My suspicion is red bulls screen would have kept Aryton alive.

          1. Quantum mechanics was the cause of Ayrton’s death, in an accident that if you could rerun 100 more times he likely would have walked away every time. A halo or aero screen may or may not have made a difference, as it just depends on which vector the suspension arm came at the cockpit versus what elements of the halo or aeroscreen are in the vector’s trajectory

    7. Melvin (@)
      8th May 2016, 9:18

      This silly argument comes up time and time again. “If they change …. i wont watch f1 ever again” I clearly remember that the sound was a thing that nobody could take away as it was F1! Now a lot of people don’t mind it. What defined f1 technically and aesthetically at the beginning is gone, what defined f1 a decade later is gone, what defined f1 a decade after that is gone etc. People get upset and judge a driver if he parties a lot. That was considered F1 DNA for a very long time! F1 has evolved more into a unique approach to racing with the best drivers and best technology, going as fast as possible and everything is a product of the time period, both technological and how we think about F1. Only time will tell if the changes will be considered great or will be mocked, but changing things is as much part of f1 as racing as fast as possible is.

      1. +1 Well said @thetick

    8. Luke Harrison
      8th May 2016, 19:48

      So, F1s DNA,

      Engines in the front? not seat belts? pit walls made of straw?

      Surely, if you’re talking about DNA, you want to go back to the very first year of F1?

  2. I don’t “like” the screen either. But if there’s a reasonable chance that it would prevent death or serious injury then the FIA is morally obligated to introduce it and we fans are morally obligated to accept that. These are sportsmen, not gladiators. We start races by singing a national anthem, not “Morituri te salutamus.”

    Ecclestone’s opinions carry exactly zero weight on matters of moral obligation, though obviously Niki Lauda has more than earned the right to weigh in on this. Whatever solution is adopted does have to work, and maybe neither of the options right now is good enough. But the FIA is absolutely right in pushing for increased safety.

    1. It’s a shame considering that Lauda should remember Tom Pryce’s fatal accident… Admittedly, another freak (and stupid) accident, but potentially the Halo or Aeroscreen would have saved his life…

      The screens and halos don’t alter the DNA of F1, it’s just an evolution, the same evolution that bought about the higher sides, fuel safety cells, and the other (not so obvious) safety related improvement…

      During Jackie Stewart’s time as a race driver, he said that over the course of a 5 season period there was only a 1 in 3 likelihood of surviving. We may have racing where 20 years passed between fatalities (Ratzenburger/Senna 1994 and Bianchi in 2014(5)), but, freak occurrences still occur such as a pedestrian crossing the circuit, front wings collapsing and even on occasion (although not for a number of years) rear wings coming off…

      Drivers do know what they are coming into and are aware that there always will be an inherent danger in racing, but, the addition of elements to improve safety must still occur..

  3. Bernie Ecclestone doesn’t believe the Aeroscreen cockpit protection design will save lives… maybe… but the real problem is that for sure Bernie Ecclestone will not save F1!

    1. The question is what qualification Ecclestone has to say what he said. Zero. His opinion in the efficacy of the screen is 100% irrelevant and utterly meaningless.

    2. I thought he had saved F1, which is why people listen to him now.

  4. I wonder if Felipe Massa would agree with Ecclestone on that one…

    1. I wasn’t aware he died. *eye-roll*

      1. @selbbin As far as I know he hasn’t as of yet. However, you may remember that he did suffer a fairly significant injury to the head when a heavy spring hit him in the head.

        A screen, if sufficiency strong would be able to defect such an object.

      2. So safety improvement should only be made after somebody is killed ? *eye-roll*

        Fantastic we only have to have expensive reviews if you are killed, not if you are hit on the head by a large flying weight, lose conciseness and crash into a barrier … in that case, you are alright jack

  5. So Gene Haas has really had a baptism of fire when it comes to negotiations with the Ring Master Ecclestone. It’s such a shame he has lost the racer in him and only been left with the greed. There was a time Bernie made F1 the greatest show on earth, but it seems that these days it’s as much about showing he still has the power than actually caring about the out come of decisions made.
    Although I have great admiration for Ecclestone, it really is time for his tenure as F1 supremo to come to a close, sooner rather than later if I was given the choice.

    1. Hear hear! Well said.

    2. Frankly I think we should be making F1 really attractive for new teams, welcome them with open arms.

      F1 would be so much healthier if teams where chomping at the bit to enter.

      1. why would they enter if they know the teams sponsored by engine manufacturers will always win and that they, as a customer team could best hope for somewhere in the middle of the pack?

        F1 isn’t any where close to attracting people who are actually interested in winning, the rule set forbids that from happening. If you want to see new teams, force engine suppliers to offer engines+gearboxes @ 250-500k a pop, no more million dollar paper weights that break down front, right and center.

        Offer real opportunities for legitimate competitors, or risk only offering rich people the opportunity to move up the ranks politically and flash their brand all over the place. Rules will not save F1, and I doubt that the kinds of interests Bernie is fishing for won’t either, it will just turn it in to a joke, like WWE. WEC, WEC is hanging by some threads, and it isn’t looking very bright for that class of racing either. The FIA and all the people who make a living telling other people what to do don’t seem to w ant to risk their own positions/political standing. & that’s what it comes down to, lazy hypocrites trying to manage brand ‘image’.

        1. Honda is interested in winning. So is Mercedes, that’s why they joined. Red Bull entered F1 with every intention of winning. Toyota always intended to win….

  6. Is there anywhere we can see the Aeroscreen on-track in video? The first photos made it seem very reflective/glary, but now I’m not sold the screen is as obtrusive as it seemed.

    There definitely seems to be some political machinations behind the motivation as Bernie was much more positive about the Halo in terms of “saving people”. I wonder if there is some sort of financial deal being cooked up towards the team that provides the “correct” solution.

      1. Awesome thanks! Yeah I’m totally down for this, you can still make out the drivers very clearly. That’s all that matters to me compared to a tin top series.

  7. If the screen is sufficiently strong that it can deflect a tyre or prevent another car from hitting the head of a driver, then I think it’s a great, visually appealing way to go. However, is it strong enough? That I have no idea on.

    1. lockup (@)
      8th May 2016, 12:56

      If you see the tests on @mike, with a wheel at 225 kph and a smaller 1-kilo projectile at 230, it seems clear it offers a lot of extra protection.

      1. @lockup

        Thanks. It looks to fare better than I expected really.

      2. Michael Brown (@)
        8th May 2016, 19:01

        After seeing those videos, the aeroscreen has my vote over the halo

  8. Since the screens risk diluting the DNA of F1, the bullet proof kevlar fuel cells of today are also diluting the DNA. It stands to reason that F1 needs to be dangerous, so why not bring back exploding cars? Now that will spice up the show considerably? No?

    1. Let’s take away wheel tethers so the dna of the spectators can feel some of the dangers as well. There is nothing quite like the thrill of a tire hitting a spectator or track marshall at 200kph.

  9. this whole saves lives bit is ridiculous.

    I don’t think Bernie will save any lives either, doesn’t mean hes completely useless. How about people stop talking sense instead of politically correct agenda driven drivel.

    you know what doesn’t save lives, running people out of business to promote engine manufactures and knowingly allowing engine manufacturers to burden ‘competitors’ with levels of RISK they never should have been asked to carry.

    1. *start

    2. Absolutely! I’m not sure what disgusts me more, those politically correctness driven drivel or things like Internet trolling/bullying.

      Like the discussion about grid girls, so many people feel bad by the sight and demands equality, I wondered how many of them do at least 50% of their own cooking, cleaning, laundry or they just don’t know what they are talking about.

  10. In F1 you should be risking your life for the great price, when you climb into the cockpit on every other sunday, you know there is a chance that you will not be able to climb out of it yourself, but the price will still be worthy it. If it’s only the price I’d go play tennis or something. There got to be something in life, that is more important than life, but that’s just the way I see it.

    And don’t compare F1 with Motogp, Motogp riders race with broken bones, they complained about wings because it might chop something off, which won’t grow again, and probably also because their team/bike can’t get advantage from it.

  11. Ecclestone and his bull….

    When WEC went from open top to closed top, was the racing ruined? Did fans leave the sport? Was there outrage? Omg it is to safe now!

    That is just crazy. Cars are safe, could they be safer? Also true, should safety feature be introduced if good design is avaliable, yes.

    Will funs run away from the sport? Not for this reason we wont. Remember when new noses were introduced, 2012 or so? We complained about the looks for long time but we watched it anyway.

    Now when we see artificial racing (DRS, Tires), or watching the race is hard to do(paywall), and finally greatly unfair commercial regulations… These are reasons why fans abandon the sport.

    I bet noone abandoned F1 because cockpits were raised by the sides of driver head. Did anyone complain when roll hoops were improved?

    If head can be protected better… Do it. People will complain about other things in notime.

    Speaking of designs, Mercedes renders of head protection concepts were beautiful. Ferrari and Red Bull concepts need work, but atleast teams are trying something. Accepting a safety hazard, because it is the DNA… Please.

    1. @jureo I think WEC is different in that closed cockpit racing has always been a part of that type of racing & it was really only the way the regulations were from around the mid-90s that made having open cockpit’s beneficial & saw everyone go down that route.

      F1 has never been about closed cockpits & IMO never should.

      I hate the look of this stupid canopy & the ridiculous halo. They look far worse than the stepped noses, Far worse than the 2014 noses & far worse than the 2009 reg changes. It makes the cars look hideous IMO & while I’m not about to say ‘i wont watch anymore’ they will certainly have an impact on my enjoyment of watching the cars because they just look absolutely hideous & not F1 IMO.

      I personally love open cockpit racing, I love been able to watch the drivers at work & think that open cockpit cars look far better ascetically than any sort of closed cockpit racing i’ve seen. Yes this silly aeroscreen isn’t fully closed, but its closed enough that it may as well be & I simply don’t like it & can’t see myself ever liking it.

  12. lockup (@)
    8th May 2016, 11:49

    I hate arguments like Brundle’s “The logical conclusion to all this for me is a driver-less racing car.”

    If you take anything to an absurd extreme it becomes foolish. The ‘logical conclusion’ to making the engines louder is a sonic boom, I suppose. Or to fuel economy – pedals!

    Though for me it seems obvious that a full canopy can be an alternative to a helmet. Or with a open screen it and helmet visors must be clear. And the screen must have a non-reflective coating and wash/wipe. The concept itself is simply sensible, travelling at 300 kph 2 feet off the ground, to have 16mm of angled polycarbonate in front of your face instead of 3mm vertical. A headband could take HANS.

    These people need to look for solutions instead of emoting.

    1. @lockup Isn’t it clear enough that ‘these people’ are looking for solutions? Some say don’t do anything as their answer, some say some sort of protection is inevitable. Someone needs to decide, and that is what everyone will have to live with.

      But I thought by now you would have talked yourself out of your strange concept that there will ever be a time of helmetless racing.

      Personally I think the aero screen would make it too hard to access a drivers head and neck to stabilize it if need be, in case the car was upside down. Any type of canopy would do the same not to mention the cars would look completely different as they are not going to be able to slap a canopy on the current style of car.

      For me so far it is the halo type or nothing, and please can we forget about there ever being helmetless racing, or with just some ‘headband’ for a HANS device?

      1. lockup (@)
        8th May 2016, 13:33

        I was thinking about Brundle and Bernie really, @robbie, saying oh we can’t see the driver. Well, we could. That’s not the concept, it’s the timid execution.

    2. @lockup The sanest thing Brundle has said since he joined sky. It’s a comment that can harm the progress of safety but the fact is the screen or halo is a compromised concept. In my view if f1 is to introduce more head protection it should go back to the drawing board and make something flawless.

      1. lockup (@)
        8th May 2016, 17:04

        Well I agree @peartree I just see this as a step along the way, that’s needed for everyone to make the adjustment.

  13. If you compare the 1994 F1 car to todays car, We already drive in closed cockpits.
    Back then, you could see their shoulders from the side of the car. Now it’s all closed up and for good reasons.
    The only persons who should have a say in this are the drivers. Not Bernie, not the spectators, nor anybody else.

  14. Evil Homer (@)
    8th May 2016, 12:54

    The canopy would not have saved Ayrton, but a tyre barrier rather than a concrete wall probably would have- look at Webber in Spain!

    Surely Formula One needs to remain open wheel & open cockpit- thats the DNA Lauda speaks of i think.

    1. lockup (@)
      8th May 2016, 17:16

      Senna was hit in the head by the end of a lightweight tube on a ball joint. Take a look at the 1kg test video and tell me it wouldn’t have been deflected.

      1. @lockup

        I think you’re absolutely right. All it may have taken was a deflection and we may still have Senna today sitting around having drinks with Prost and arguing about “the good old days”.

  15. I can’t say I ‘like’ it conceptually, but that’s not a valid reason to abandon implementing some form of additional cockpit protection. I appreciate the function, purpose, and necessity of the Aeroscreen, and can’t pinpoint a valid objection that isn’t borne from some romantic ‘purity’ stance. I’ll be interested to see how the A-screen influences aerodynamic development.

  16. @KeithCollantine Thanks for the COTD! I have some more personal stories that are related to F1 but I will save them for rainy days :)

    1. @girts Well, watching Webber win his first race can’t have been a bad experience. I for one am very jealous as in all my time supporting him I’ve never been to one race that he won. Even worse, both WEC rounds I visited him, shook his hand and wished him luck, he failed to finish.

      1. @xtwl I did not enjoy seeing Kovalainen spin right in front of my eyes at Spa 2012 either…

        But yes, the 2009 German GP was a great experience. I even captured the moment Webber crossed the finish line:

    2. Looking forward for your next stories..

  17. Make casks tougher and annihilate all possibility for large, medium and heavy projectiles to struck the driver, or make a true not wec flimsy roof.

  18. Bernie Ecclestone: “I don’t like the screen and l don’t think it is going to save anybody.”

    I think he will try to make sure of that.

  19. Michael Brown (@)
    8th May 2016, 19:11

    The “DNA” of F1. As far as I’m concerned, F1 is the highest lever of single seater racing. But it’s also about performance, and F1 has changed a lot for the sake of performance.

    So as long as F1 remains a single seater championship, I don’t care if they close the cockpits, add low profile tires, add doors, and cover the wheels. If F1 can get faster with any of those things, they should change it. Resisting change by citing tradition is a weak argument. What tradition? It wasn’t tradition to have wings, but now everyone has them.

  20. Hahaha, they try to promote it so hard on SkySports (in the video above > Russian GP Practice), but when Kimi flashes past by Ricciardo without head protection, both commentators just felt silly for a moment I guess.

    It’s one thing to make something safer and safer and another to take every single element of danger out of a sport that thrives on danger. You can make F1 99.9% safe, but then don’t expect people watching or following the races.

  21. The good thing about science Mr. Ecclestone is that it does not require belief.

  22. On this day in F1 history Gilles Villeneuve passed.

  23. Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
    8th May 2016, 23:19

    Whatever the merits or lack of same Aeroscreen may have, it sure can’t save Bernie from his own tongue.

  24. Racingdave
    8th May 2016, 23:31

    The Screen would not have saved Surtees. It doesn’t give protection from flying wheel from above which the halo looked it would. The screen would have stopped Massa’s injury.

    Anything Redbull rolls out I would be suspicious of how much perfomance they gain from it…..
    I would like to see Williams produce something.

    1. Michael Brown (@)
      9th May 2016, 0:24

      Wouldn’t the wheel have hit the top of the screen, deflecting it ever so slightly?

  25. Can we please stop reporting and commenting on every idiotic utterance by Bernie? The man has no qualification on any subject on F1 (bar extorting hosting fees and tv rights)? He owns the commercial rights to the sport but doesn’t even know what the viewers want to see.

    Until he is either jailed, exiled or kicks the bucket, I don’t want to hear about his brain-farts.

  26. They’ve already damaged the DNA of F1 by making it the province of automobile manufacturers rather than of independent, albeit wealthy, sportsmen and enthusiasts.

  27. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    9th May 2016, 14:46

    Someone please let Ecclestone test a car with the aeroscreen!!!

Comments are closed.