Is Halo really as popular among the drivers as the FIA claims?

What they say about...

Posted on

| Written by

Is the Halo head protection device really is popular among Formula One drivers as the FIA would like people to believe?

On Wednesday the sport’s governing body announced Halo will be mandatory from the 2018 F1 season following “the repeated support of the drivers”.

This jars with a report last January which claimed an FIA poll of 22 drivers found just five were in favour of introducing Halo. Seven were against, while the rest abstained or expressed no preference.

What do drivers really think of Halo, and have their opinions changed since they started testing it at the beginning of last year? Here’s what they’ve said about it.

Initial reactions

Massa: “Safety is the most important thing”
At the beginning of last year former Formula One driver Alexander Wurz, now a chairman of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association, declared F1 drivers “feel it’s time to implement the extra protection at the latest in 2017”.

Not all drivers are members of the GPDA. According to Romain Grosjean, who replaced Jenson Button as a GPDA director in May, just 12 of the 20 current F1 drivers belong to the organisation.

The FIA pressed ahead with its Halo development plan in conjunction with Ferrari, which gave the device its debut in pre-season testing last year. Initial reactions were mixed, but some drivers later revised their opinions:

This is the worst looking mod in Formula One history. I appreciate the quest for safety but this is Formula One and the way it is now is perfectly fine.
Lewis Hamilton

I think safety and security in F1 and the standards are pretty high and very good. I would be happy to accept those risks and keep running as we are.
Nico Hulkenberg

Safety is the most important thing and I totally agree with the Halo or maybe with the closed cockpit or whatever, I agree with this change. But it doesn’t look very nice to be honest, so we’ll see how it’s going to be. If it’s good for safety, then it’s fine.
Felipe Massa

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up


Hamilton softened his stance on Halo
Every team and almost all of the drivers racing in F1 today tested Halo during the course of last season. The tests shed light on several practice considerations with the device, such as its effect on visibility and whether it would hinder drivers getting out of the cars:

Apart from getting into the car, I didn’t notice much difference. I didn’t really notice it, apart from blocking my mirrors – I couldn’t see the rear wing. I could run it this weekend if they allowed it.
Lewis Hamilton

It makes no difference, we can still get out of the car.
Kimi Raikkonen

It’s pretty hard to get in and out, that’s the first impression that I got. Getting in and out needs to improve somehow, also for the mechanics to be able to fasten the seat belts. There are things to look at.
Fernando Alonso

It feels weird to have something in front of you. It is like having a cap pulled down really far. You can see where you are walking, but you can’t see anything else.

I don’t like it. The visibility is not as good as I hoped. So I think at tracks where there is elevation it is going to be a problem.
Kevin Magnussen

Tested the Halo for the first time. Positively surprised! Didn’t notice it at all whilst driving. The looks of it we’ll get used to.
Marcus Ericsson

Halo, Aeroscreen or Shield?

Faced with the obvious aesthetic shortcomings of Halo, Red Bull devised a canopy-shaped alternative called Aeroscreen. A similar solution called Shield was later tested as well.

I don’t mind the Shield, I think it looks OK. It’s definitely a good step compared to the Halo.

I wouldn’t mind trying out the Shield, see how it is for visibility, and if there’s any other issues. I think for safety it would be a good step compared to what we have now.
Valtteri Bottas

Look-wise I don’t think there’s an awful lot of difference between either of them.
Kimi Raikkonen

Looking from the outside, probably the Red Bull solution (Aeroscreen, similar to Shield) looks a little bit better from an aesthetic point of view, but the FIA will decide the best one.

I hope there are more options (for cockpit protection) coming because it’s very early days and the important thing is to find the best solution. It’s a ‘must’ that will come from next year (2017), hopefully.
Fernando Alonso

It fell to Sebastian Vettel to evaluate the Shield at Silverstone last weekend, but he declared himself unhappy with the device.

The ‘95% support’ row

Palmer accused Vettel of exaggerating support for Halo
Aide from questions of how well Halo worked, several drivers continued to oppose it on the grounds they felt it was unnecessary. At least one of them also claimed other drivers had exaggerated the extent of its support:

Most people I speak to are against it but don’t really voice it in the press, so I think there’s a bit of a divide. Some of the older guys prefer it and the younger guys don’t.
Jolyon Palmer

We had a vote among the drivers and I think 90 to 95% voted for it so I don’t know why all of a sudden it comes up the way it does.

I think it’s the wrong impression as I think the majority in here as well said. We don’t like the looks of it but I don’t think there’s anything really that justifies death.

We’ve always learned from what happens, incidents that happen on track and we’ve tried to improve. That would be the first time in human history that we learn a lesson and we don’t change.

So I think it’s up to us to make sure it does happen otherwise I think we’d be quite stupid.
Sebastian Vettel

95% were never in favour, so that’s a lie. I don’t know where it’s come from.

The thing is we’ve never had a proper vote in it, so no one can ever know.
Jolyon Palmer

Rosberg supported Halo but has left F1
Strikingly, at least two of Halo’s strongest supporters are no longer on the grid:

It’s very clear. The large majority are definitely for halo, a very large majority. We had the presentation from the FIA and you can only be for it. I understand people who have something against halo, I understand the purist and things like that, but nevertheless it’s the right thing to do.
Nico Rosberg

(Palmer’s) incorrect and it’s very unfair for him to speak for other drivers as well because each individual should speak for themselves on a safety issue. We sat down for an hour with the guys from the FIA who developed the Halo with Ferrari. It’s a great solution.
Jenson Button

If these two were among the five who backed it in January, support for Halo among the drivers is extremely shallow.


GPDA director Grosjean is a staunch Halo critic
Among the drivers Halo has had supporters and opponents from the beginning. The middle ground is occupied by reluctant converts and increasingly emboldened critics:

We don’t need anything. I am against every Halo or Shield or whatever, it is not F1.
Romain Grosjean

In principle, I think it doesn’t look very nice. But if it can help saving lives, and if thanks to it at least the two drivers who died recently could still be here with us, then I think it can be the ugliest system but nothing could justify not having it fitted.
Sebastian Vettel

The way the Formula One cars should look should remain the same. I think we have enough protection so far. If they are good ideas they should be considered but so far I am quite against it to be honest, both those options.
Daniil Kvyat

I paid very close attention to the great briefing we were given on it. I take safety very seriously and I think the interesting thing, while it doesn’t look great and doesn’t look in the racing spirit, you can’t ignore the fact that the chances are 17 percent better* of saving a driver’s life in the incidents that have happened in the past.

However, we still have to continue to improve and at some stage we would have to close the canopy completely because that would be 100 percent. There were still some examples, like Felipe [Massa]’s accident in Hungary in 2009, where it wouldn’t have stopped him from being injured. I think with Justin [Wilson’s], I believe they said it wouldn’t have saved him because it was a pointy object from above, but a closed canopy would have perhaps.
Lewis Hamilton

*See here for more on this figure

The drivers, even if we hate it and know it’s not in the DNA of the sport, when you look at it, you say it makes some sense.

I don’t like it, but it’s like when you’re dad tells you you are wrong and you know he is right but you don’t want to admit it.
Carlos Sainz Jnr

The FIA clearly faces an uphill battle to convince most fans and journalists that Halo is the right solution at the right time. It would be a much easier sell if all the drivers had repeatedly supported it, but that simply isn’t the case.

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.

67 comments on “Is Halo really as popular among the drivers as the FIA claims?”

  1. So far the only basis for comparison we will have is halo vs no halo because that is the only option F1 teams will have next season. It will be up to other series to give us alternatives that we will be able to compare against in real world use.

    1. I think it is so sad! The HALO System makes the car look horrible and so I will stop watching and going to Austin starting next season.

  2. Any aesthetically related argument is pointless if you’re talking about the need or implementing it. However, the halo looks terrible and that should be addressed for the future.

    1. Aesthetics are not an argument but effectivity is.

      The FIA itself says that in accidents to the drivers head-area the Halo would only help in 17% of the cases… (basically only tyres that got lose from their tethers) that’s attrocious effectivity if you ask me. I mean..what’s the point!!?

      1. Iirc, they said that it was effective in 17% of other cases, excluding wheels and other large debris.

        Still, that would mean more than one driver in 6 could be saved in those incidents. Would you be happy explaining to that 6th driver’s family that, because it wouldn’t save the other 5, it was OK that their son/brother/etc was injured or killed?

        I agree that it’s not the best solution. Personally I’d prefer to see closed cockpits (and closed wheels, for that matter). It’s also definitely not very attractive to look at. However, I don’t think the cars are very attractive, nor have they been for a very long time, so aesthetics don’t bother me.

        At this point in time, any improvement in safety is going to be by tiny margins, because F1 is already very safe. But it should continue to improve, and the halo is a reasonable temporary solution IMHO.

    2. I hope that the new cars will be designed with the halo in mind so it may look better. At the moment we are just seeing what the halo looks like tacked on to a 2016-17 cars that wasn’t designed with the halo in mind.

  3. How about…make it optional?

    1. it, and helmets, and having the chassis pass the crash test, and wearing helmets, and being able to get out of the car from driving position in a short amount of time??

      1. This has been brought up before, I think it’s a complete non-starter..

    2. Optional means accountants and engineers will have the final say on the matter, not drivers. If Halo was necessary for an accountant to work safely then it would have been already implemented. If Halo gave a car an obvious aerodynamic advantage (there may be an unknown aerodynamic benefit from Halo) compared to one without then it would have already been implemented. Since it costs money and doesn’t give a car an obvious aerodynamic advantage then “optional” means it won’t get fitted.
      Also, “optional” gives engineers the potential to cut back on what they might deem “unnecessary mass”, which could reduce Halo’s strength and toughness.

  4. However, we still have to continue to improve and at some stage we would have to close the canopy completely because that would be 100 percent.

    This is the crux of the matter for me. If the case is that safety is of utmost importance, then why not make F1 a closed wheel and canopy series? Why take half measures when the final and safest solution is available now?

    If however there is some accepted trade-off between speed and spectacle, why should the line be drawn at the Halo, rather than the safety measures already in place which currently situate F1 as a safer profession than MMA or boxing?

    1. Closed wheel no. Open wheel is what F1 is, and that would completely destroy the sport. Closed cockpit I could handle, especially if it looks good, but closed wheel… I’d still watch, as I like motorsports, but it wouldn’t be the same.

      1. One of my favourite F1 cars is the W196 Streamliner…

    2. You say

      This is the crux of the matter for me. If the case is that safety is of utmost importance, then why not make F1 a closed wheel and canopy series?

      Well Tristan, apart from the debate about looks / estetics and having open wheel/open cockpit F1 cars that @hugh11 mentions, building an F1 car with a closed cockpit would mean a complete start over.

      You would have to throw pretty much the whole car away and start from scratch, ending up with something between a narrower LMP car and and F1 car. You would have to solve visibility (distortion and the dizzyness Seb was feeling after a single lap with the “shield” solution) which is already a bit of an issue with a LMP car, but since they are wider it is less severe. Also you would need to build in airco, which would probably mean having a very intense look at the engine and hybrid components too. It would also completely change the airflow. And more.

      In other words, that would take maybe 4-5 years and get the smaller teams struggling even more to be on the grid, making it a no go.

      1. Well Bascb, if safety is the most important thing, those costs shouldn’t matter. You can’t put a price on someone’s life. etc…

        That part of the comment is untrue anyway.

        1. First of all, it is not untrue at all (prove it if you claim this to be the case Tristan).

          Also a complete redesign would take them 2-3 years just to agree on how to do it – remember how long it took for the current aero rules to get agreed? Then off course you have the huge cost, which would be a multiple of what teams faced for this year, as they still kept the basic ideas, but it would also take more than a year for the teams to build those cars from scratch. And I think teams like Sauber, FI and even Williams would struggle to get enough money behind it, who knows how much Renault and Haas (and McLaren) would be willing to commit. And even Red Bull might not want in, because of that overhaul making much of their aero knowledge only partly relevant.

          Safety means “as safe as one can reasonably make it with the resources available”, not prevent all risks at any cost. That is why some things are not allowed because it is impossible to make viable (real Russian roulette) and others are only when/if when they take precautions (Helmets, fire-proof overalls for even basic level racing, helmets for cycling/Ice-Hockey/Football, …).
          The Halo is there, it has proven that it would significantly improve safety in some regards, somewhat in other regards (those 17%) and not have too many negative risks to be disregarded. Of the many alternatives proposed within the scope of keeping F1, none has shown to be readily available in time for next season.

          1. I’m not debating any of it. It’s a waste of breath and just going around in circles seen in the comments of just about every article on the matter. Doesn’t it bore you?

            I’m just saying Hamilton is right and if safety is so important they might as well go for it 100%. They’ll end up there anyway in a piecemeal fashion with this method of thinking. It makes no sense to just stop at the Halo after all.

            There’s great opportunistic timing with Liberty entering and Brawn’s proposed regulation changes to define what is really important for F1 and motorsports as a whole. Rather than continuing this reactive change mentality (which even the FIA admits the Halo is) why not put safety at the forefront and be proactive about it?

            Or… Decide that spectacle, aesthetics and indeed even danger is an integral part of the DNA of F1 and that safe enough is good enough.

            I’m not saying either way is right or wrong, it’s just my comment on the matter.

          2. What I’m really saying honestly is that I hope they just do whatever it is they’re going to do and be confident that it’s the right decision and everyone gets on board (or if not they’ll be racing with it anyway soon enough.) This will they won’t they, let’s wait for more opinions, we said it’ll happen this year but we changed our mind at the last minute so now you don’t know if we’ll change our mind for next year rubbish is tiring.

  5. Still my opinion Liberty n FIA should run extra car in practice to develop safety n show (LED number, body part, tyre rims etc).

    And how engineers voice? Right now July-Sept .. is HALO already have fix dimension, connection syatem n weight? To put HALO in aero equation right now and re-design how flow behavior to rear wing and car overalll in this mid season its not wise (yeah its same from everybody)

  6. They can say whatever they want to justify it, the fact remain simple: it looks terribly bad. There are so many things they can do in the name of safety, this is just one more to the list. Another reality is driver legs is at risk (like the head…) due to single seater design, so according to Vettel and Todt we will need to address this real quick! morons…

  7. Somebody raised here or somewhere else, that the place where the extra head protection is really needed is not the premier series, F1, but the feeder F4 and such championships, as there are way more of the crash type where the halo would be needed.
    I would make mandatory to use head protection in F1, but offer at least 2 option, a Halo and a Shield like instrument. Then every team can select one or other, or even can develop further the concepts in some regards.

    1. I think the teams should be given some flexibility to try some sort of shield or fairing, with the proviso that if the stewards or driver aren’t happy then Halo is used.
      I don’t see any reason a screen couldn’t be incorporated into Halo. The beauty of Halo is it has only that central pillar to affect the driver’s view of the racetrack (wing mirrors aside). If done correctly then a screen fitted to Halo should offer more protection to the driver without any significant distortion of the track.

      1. Being a technical purest, I’d love to see head protection built into the safety cell specifications and the teams allowed to develope their own solutions. As long as it passes the safety checks, let them develope the best solution. Leave the halo as a default, known solution, but let them figure out any better way themselves. It’s the best way to find the best solution.

        However, the problem with this is to, once again, it gives the big boys an advantage. It would be very expensive to come up with a solution, and the smaller teams would most likely lag behind. Unfortunately, to keep costs down, a standardised solution is required…

  8. kmag has valid concern there. Tracks with elevation might introduce some serious blind spots with halo. And if that blind spot is on fast part of the track like Eau Rouge in Spa, it might cause catastrophic collisions.

      1. I managed to get the link in the last line I wrote.. Sorry!!

    1. They tested it at Spa last year the FIA has said visibility isn’t a serious concern. Let’s see if any drivers contradict them on that point.

  9. It makes no difference, we can still get out of the car.

    Oh Kimi, never change

    1. But it is curious and interesting from a certain point of view. He never speaks a word more than needed, but how much of all this halo thing should be in drivers’ hands?

      I mean, FIA must be sure that they don’t lose visibility and can safely get out of the car in case of an incident. Aesthetic and safety, it’s not their work IMHO. Other things in the past were forced on them, HANS for instance. They were reluctant, but this always happens when you change the status quo.

      What’s important now is that the Federation choose to adopt it; teams have the best engineers and designers to improve that thing. I’m a bit out of the loop but I don’t hear teams speaking about that: if they’re smart as they are, they’re at the table working on its impact on aero and proposals to improve it.

      I personally hate it, but I hated tons of other things that now I just don’t even notice.

  10. Halo, like DRS, is a stop-gap solution. So we’re probably going to be stuck with it for at least another 10 years…

    1. Shark fins rule
      23rd July 2017, 22:21

      George, sorry, halo is nothing like DRS, halo makes F1 and the drivers look weak.

      1. Depending on your viewpoint, and what you consider to be the most important part, DRS makes F1 look weak.

        DRS affects the main part of F1: the racing. It makes it look like the drivers can only pass each other with a device which gives them an advantage. It makes the drivers look less skilled, makes overtakes look easier, makes the whole thing seem formulaic and predictable (at times).

        Halo only affects aesthetics negatively, and if you are looking for pretty cars you are following the wrong sport. I have yet to see a truly beautiful F1 car from an aesthetic standpoint. Being an engineer, I see the technical beauty in the designs, but they are more like athletes than beauty pageant contestants.

        1. It makes it look like the drivers can only pass each other with a device which gives them an advantage

          They already had – at least some of them – a “push to pass” button, before DRS.

        2. Shark fins rule
          25th July 2017, 0:24

          Sorry, I don’t follow the wrong sport and it’s not for you to tell people that.

        3. I have yet to see a truly beautiful F1 car from an aesthetic standpoint.

          If the Lotus 49 and the Eagle MK1 are not beautiful then i have no idea how a truly beautiful car shoud look like

      2. And DRS doesn’t?

  11. I don’t think there’s anything really that justifies death

    This is very emotive language from Vettel and I’ve seen plenty of variations of this and the “if it only saves one life” argument since the halo announcement. But the more I see it the more I think most of those who use such arguments don’t grasp what taking such arguments to their logical conclusion means. If nothing can justify death then motor racing can never be justified, for as long as cars and bikes are being raced to their limits there will be deaths. All things being equal improving safety is obviously desirable but in motorsport it can never be seen as the abosolute goal, safety advances are only desirable in so far as they’re consitent with the essence of each form of racing.

    Maybe the halo, and the end of open-cockpit racing, is consistent with the essence of Grand Prix racing. I don’t think it is, but that is the debate that needs to be had. And such a debate about what is vital to the nature of the sport isn’t helped by proponents of the halo treating safety as an absolute goal in a sport where that can never be the case.

    1. exactly the point; when and where would it stop? after halo, then the next is ‘something’ to deal with smaller objects, which will mean a ‘shield’….followed by ‘something’ else, so forth… so if one takes safety to its logical ‘conclusion, then it’ll be a closed-cockpit. and even with that, it’ll still not be 100% risk-free. so the discussion should be about what FIA, FOM/Liberty, teams, drivers and fans want F1 to be.
      if we all agree that there’s always going to be a risk with any form of motorsport, then where do we draw the line; what level of risk should be deemed ‘acceptable’? once we answer that question, then rest shall fall in place…otherwise we should as well race with armoured cars!

      1. Sure enough, only a simulated race would be (close to) 100% safe so we should be kissing the real world races goodbye

  12. One might wonder what the point of having an open cockpit racing formula is when the driver is almost entirely hidden from view. Regardless what kind of safety measures one takes, racing at speeds of more than 300 kph will never be fully safe. If the risk of serious injury or worse is to be avoided at all cost either the speed should be reduced dramatically or the driver should be taken out of the car (with today’s technology this is entirely feasible).

    1. Taking a driver out of the car is an interesting thought.

  13. I have a design that would work and look good. Ross get in contact I’ll fill u in.👍

    1. @john Could you show your design to us as well? I’d like to see it myself.

  14. Driving fast is dangerous. If Vettel is so worried, I recommend he reduce his speed. Perhaps Vettel got into the wrong line of work?

    Just replace the drivers with robots already.

  15. ” I don’t think there’s anything really that justifies death “. Well then, don’t drive the damn car. This is not F1. If safety is paramount then we could have tank races, but few would pay $500 to $1000 per ticket.

    1. Funny coming from a guy that recently decided to use his car as a weapon.

      1. Oh, seriously. I have zero love lost for Seb Vettel and I do not find his Baku actions acceptable. But can you say with a straight face that by low-speed wheel-banging he was purting anybody’s physical integrity at risk?

  16. John Toad (@)
    23rd July 2017, 18:52

    This whole discussion needs be turned on it’s head.
    Start from the question:
    What rate of death or serious injuries for drivers is acceptable?
    Use a measure of driver miles to calculate the rate and the decide what an acceptable number is.
    For F1 to continue the answer has to be something other than zero.
    If zero is the only acceptable number then F1 simply stops.

  17. Why don’t they sit down and design a well thought throught solution as an integral part of the car (rather than a ‘bolted on’ solution) that helps at the very least 71% of time rather than in 17% (!!) and while their at it also take driver extraction, visability in various circumstances (like rain and elevation) and easthetics into consideration.

    To me it feels like the FIA has used a lot of time (2 years) to come up with a solution that has simply not been thought through well enough. It al seems very amateuristic from where I stand.

    1. It’s actually many more years than that – I seem to remember seeing FIA footage of them testing solutions as far back as 2009 (I could stand corrected on this, but it was certainly around this time).

      1. Something like that, the tender was sent out for solutions in the industry around the 2010 season. There were tests of course within the companies and FIA tested publicly in 2011. Like the Canopy , the Roll Hoop
        and the res as detailed by James Allen

        The point is, this is NOT a rushed solution, many many, many things have been tested by the FIA, even more solutions have been tested by the industry not deemed good enough to submit to the FIA

        So get the facts, they’re out there.

  18. With the support for it being as flimsy as it is, you just know it’ll go the way of the penis-shaped noses. Everyone outside of F1 will laugh at it, and after some years the FIA will be so embarassed they’ll get rid of it.

    I’m all for safety, but F1 cars NEED to look cool. What kid would ever hang a poster of a Halo equipped car above his bed?

    1. I’ll ask again, when had an F1 car ever looked “cool”?

      Supercars look cool, with their sleek lines and curves, pretty paint jobs, shiney wheels etc. But that’s because part of the design spec is that they must look good.

      F1 cars have always been about designing a fast car. Bolted on bits here and there, with fiddly shapes to maximise aerodynamic performance, do not look cool. Tyres sticking out don’t look cool. Pods with big holes don’t look cool. But this is all fine, because they are not supposed to look good, they are supposed to get the maximum performance possible from the current technical regulations.

      I’m sick of people talking about the aesthetics of F1 cars. The beauty of an F1 car derives from its performance, it’s handling, how it behaves on track. It is a technical beauty. The elegance of solutions to extract another hundredth of a second here, to reduce weight by a gram there… These things count.

      Obviously, this is all my opinion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people find a female body builder attractive. I don’t, aesthetically, although I find their dedication and hard work to be the best they can be in their chosen profession to be very attractive qualities.

      1. @drmouse How do you feel about male body builders and their dedication and hard work?

      2. Isn’t it cool?

  19. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    23rd July 2017, 22:39

    The FIA should watch the pit stops at Nascar, especially Justin Allgaier’s pitstop…

    I think the FIA has done a splendid job – they can make racing a lot more safe if they incorporate all the safety systems on any Mercedes that the company sells… Sainz would never have hit Grosjean if he had collision detection:-)

  20. The FIA is running scared. Bianchi would not have been saved with a Halo.

    A Lexan shield with a steeper angle would deflect anything thrown at it.
    It would not need to be too high and not too much curve, not making the cars look so ugly as with the Halo.
    Exit and entry would be less cumbersome, visibility would be less obtrusive.
    It will change the aero, but that can be overcome with the genius of the designers.
    The Halo is crap, visually, and probably the ugliest attachment to an F1 car. Almost as bad as the fins, and T bar.
    Mechanically, it is time for the wheels to come up to date with current norms on ordinary vehicles. 13″ is so 1990’s. Time to upgrade to 16″ and let the engineers have something new to work with. Mechanical grip is way more interesting than aero, that affects the following cars. F1 is missing the excitement of daring passes, and even higher cornering speeds with the new wider tires.
    This is just my humble opinion, after following F1, since the Jim Clark days.

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      24th July 2017, 13:54

      so you’re new to F1, right?:-)

  21. Lewis to Seb:

    “You of all people Seb, really?”

  22. So the drivers with kids are for, and those with out against?

    1. Evil Homer (@)
      25th July 2017, 14:22

      Not really, Grosjean has two kids but doesn’t like the halo- but I don’t think too many drivers have kids anyway but they are the older ones- Seb, Romain, Kimi & Filipe – not sure of any others?

      Its all about their own perspective with safety I think- Moto GP Champ Casey Stoner was asked about this, his response was something like “I got married and won my first World Championship, my wife was expecting our first child and I won my second” – didn’t slow him down.

      But I do hope Moto GP come up with some kind of Halo equivalent, that sport does seem a little dangerous………

  23. No use complaining anymore. Its happening. Its rubbish

  24. I think it is so sad! The HALO System makes the car look horrible and so I will stop watching and going to Austin starting next season.

  25. The admin folk are now just petrified of getting sued. Of course we don’t want drivers killed, but if you want to prevent that then ban all motor sport. I’ve watched F1 all my life but I’m not going to sit and watch an ugly car go round just in case something interesting happens. The drivers should vote with their feet against it. I am cancelling my sky subscription when the season is over.

Comments are closed.