Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Circuit de Catalunya, 2016

FIA lean towards Halo solution for 2017

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: the FIA appear likely to introduce Ferrari’s Halo driver protection concept to Formula 1 for next season.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

After Max Verstappen admitted that the crash that ended his qualifying session was his own fult, Arahones offers some sympathy with F1’s youngest ever race winner.

Well, at least he is honest about it. It was a very dumb mistake, especially in Q1 with the very fast RBR. It’s a shame, but it probably means more excitement in the race. But let’s not forget he is still in the process of getting comfortable with the car. That should not be an excuse, but in all fairness, he has earned some credit.

Personally, I have actually made the same mistake myself in a go-kart endurance race. While comfortable in the lead, I turned in to early and hit the concrete (which actually hurt). For me it was a matter of losing focus, was driving on ‘auto pilot’, braked too early and just blindly turned in. Still won the race though.
@Arahones

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Chris, Hughes, Silverkeg and Danny11!

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

Sebastian Vettel weathered fierce pressure from Fernando Alonso and Jenson Button to win the Monaco Grand Prix five years ago today, thanks in part to a useful red flag.

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

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

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

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

  • 32 comments on “FIA lean towards Halo solution for 2017”

    1. inb4 desktop experts claim that they know all the strength, bending and stress factors of each material and structural integrity of each and every protection device conceivable, more than the people who test them

      and also the guys who think it’s F1’s DNA to have a slightly prettier but still ugly car, just because this device won’t counter each and every incident that could ever happen

      1. Michael Brown (@)
        29th May 2016, 14:11

        inb4 “This isn’t Le Mans.” How observant. It turns out there’s a big difference between Le Mans and F1, not just closed cockpits.

    2. I wouldn’t say the aeroscreen is preferred over the halo by fans, like they say. I’ve seen mixed reviews in both directions. Personally I think the aeroscreen is horrendous.

      1. I dislike how it really takes away any chance of really seeing the driver. It does look “slick” but not an open cockpit to me.

      2. ColdFly F1 (@)
        29th May 2016, 10:52

        and the FIA halo probably won’t look like the Ferrari halo. @strontium, @bascb
        Or as per the article: “The new version is understood to be more streamlined compared to its ‘chunky’ predecessor”

        All I hope: make an early decision, communicate it clearly & move on.

        1. all great points @coldfly!

      3. Agreed, I can’t think of a more fitting word for the aeroscreen. Horrendous.

    3. I regard the “halo” as a particularly ugly solution, and I may not watch F1 with such an ugly piece of kit attached to the cars. Maybe if the sport hadn’t procrastinated for MONTHS regarding next year’s regulations …. they would have had more time to consider an more aesthetic and effective solution? The halo is far from perfect: a heavy piece of debris with a narrow cross-section could EASILY slip between the halo and the “dash hoop” area of the cockpit.

      1. It may be imperfect, but the indication from the BBC is that the aeroscreen performed worse than expected in a recent test, as well as currently lacking sufficient clearance between the sides of the screen and the drivers head. Out of the two devices, it seems that the halo device has more of a proven test record when stopping larger pieces of debris, hence why that is the current preferred option.

      2. I think it would look a lot better if it weren’t black and it didn’t have a sponsor logo on it.

      3. pastaman (@)
        29th May 2016, 13:01

        LOL. “I’m not watching F1 anymore because it’s not pretty enough.” Spoken like a true motorhead…

        1. @pastaman

          of all the stupid things done to F1 by the people in charge, and people chose this to be their last straw…

          1. A broken bridge is a broken bridge. It’s the total weight on it (plus a few other things like the positioning of the weight), not whatever the last item that got put on it turned out to be, that causes it to snap.

    4. Sviatoslav (@)
      29th May 2016, 10:18

      Martin Brandle told a very important thought in my view: Once something bad happens even with a Halo protection system or with Red Bull’s aeroscreen, the FIA will remove racers from the track and put them in simulators.
      I am not sure that the phrase is 100% exact, but the idea is correct. The FIA has already tried simulator-based racing with the Formula E drivers. They can easily test this with the Formula 1 ones.

      Again and again, I am completely against this “protection” or any kind of protection that makes F1 cars look as LeMans prototypes. All you need to do is to better check the track, do not issue any crane/people on track unless the SF is deployed, and install better barriers that can absorb direct strong hits from a fast-going car. This would be enough.

      1. Tell that to Surtees.

        1. What a sound argument Colonel RPG. Not. I would tell that to Surtees . To his face. It’s sad what’d happened to his son but this is racing. Otherwise like Brundle said we may all just pack up and go home

      2. pastaman (@)
        29th May 2016, 13:03

        Checking the track and barriers better is not going to prevent car parts from flying around. And no, you can’t tether every piece of the car together.

    5. I’m confused
      To me the Halo looks like it will stop a tyre but not a spring , ie Massa’s Hungary accident ? Or any other debris small enough to slip through ,

      Does the FIA only want to protect against big things ?

      1. The aero screen will affect visibility of the driver in normal dry races as debris and other dust will form on it. In wet races, the aero screen will be useless (I don’t think vipers like the ones we have on our cars are designed to work for speeds in excess of 200 kmph which an F1 car will go at even in wet).

        Plus, a cracked aero screen (due to debris) means that shards of the aero screen will go towards the driver potentially harming him more.

        Hence, halo wins over aeroscreen. Plus, while the aeroscreen makes the car look better it completely removes the driver from our sight. So for that also, I personally prefer the halo.

        1. Shards? The aero screens are not made of glass. They’re made of bendable material.

    6. What worries me the most about the statement is that the FIA pushes for the Halo device due to time constraints. Like, why don’t you take more time to develop both ideas to implement them, instead of just rushing out the most easily fixed one? Same thing happened in 2012 with the lowered noses and we got the platypus nose, and then 2014 again, which proved to be dangerous enough they could flip a car much more easily than the older ones.

      I don’t care much for either the halo or the aeroscreen (although the latter looks more aesthetically pleasing to me), but if you’re gonna implement one of them, take the time you need to do it, and don’t just rush either of them due to time constraints – fatal flaws may be discovered in the worst ways possible if the FIA just rushes this thing out next year like that.

      1. @revenger210 “why don’t you take more time to develop both ideas to implement them, instead of just rushing out the most easily fixed one?”

        Because the FIA are under a lot of pressure from the GPDA to implement something as soon as possible. While some drivers don’t want anything to change a larger portion of them do & they have been increasing pressure on the FIA over the past year to implement some sort of cockpit protection, Especially after Justin Wilson’s death in Indycar late last year.

      2. Because the FIA believes the Halo 2 will be better than nothing, and even if the aeroscreen could be developed to be superiour to either, it will need more research to be ready. Of course, I’d have more confidence in it if Halo 2 (as distinct from Halo 1) had been meaningfully tested prior to being mandated – something that doesn’t seem to have happened.

    7. Larger tires – GREAT – looks more like a F1 car. just hope more mechanical grip will allow to follow closer and do more overtaking!

      Halo – FANTASTICALLY STUPID IDEA – if they are afraid of getting hurt, go home and play F1 on the PlayStation… I thought the danger was a big factor for the driver to get HUGE money deals!

      Bianchi family suing FIA+Marrussia – RIDICULOUS! – they are embarrassing themselves and tainting Jules name!

      Hope today’s race at Monaco turn out a BIG SHOW. I’m starting to enjoy more seeing Sky F1 guys talking about F1 during the Free Practices and the special shows, than the races themselves… :(

      1. I hope that they win the case against the FIA, because the FIA is a badly managed organisation.

        1. pastaman (@)
          29th May 2016, 13:06

          If you don’t have any substance to convince people, just use CAPITALS to make your point for you.

        2. pastaman (@)
          29th May 2016, 13:07

          Sorry @ultimateuzair, was not in reply to your comment

    8. Cook*, not cool.

    9. Alex McFarlane
      29th May 2016, 12:32

      What if the halo were forced back into the cockpit? Wouldn’t drivers necks be at risk?

    10. Michael Brown (@)
      29th May 2016, 14:01

      Well, hopefully the FIA has a better idea for the Halo, because I think the aeroscreen did a much better job of protectI got against small object.

      Given the FIA’s record with F1, it will probably be worse.

    11. Justin (@vivagilles27)
      30th May 2016, 2:44

      It will be interesting to hear what everyone has to say after the first driver blames an accident on obstructed visibility. I cringe every time I look at this ugly monstrosity. Thousands of kids go out and race Karts every weekend totally exposed but these guys need a pole in front of their faces to keep safe? At some point you just have to accept that no matter what you do motor racing will be dangerous. If you look at the video of Bianchi’s accident, no reasonable person would conclude that a Halo would have saved him. And I’m not entirely sure it would have saved Justin Wilson either…….

    12. I’m personally not a fan of this, I just think it’s unnecessary and potentially dangerous as it could obstruct a drivers view. It’s quite obvious that it wouldn’t have saved Jules or Justin Wilson. If they want to prevent accidents like Jules’ happening they need to not hold races in the middle of a typhoon or have recovery vehicles in such a place, and they’ve already helped the cars to slow down with the VSC so they don’t go careering off the track into the vehicles.

    Comments are closed.