Justin Wilson, Andretti, Pocono, 2015

Wilson’s fatal crash shows F1 must have Halo – Vettel

2018 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Sebastian Vettel says it would be “ignorant and stupid” for Formula One not to introduce the Halo when it knows it could save drivers’ lives.

The four-times champion said the device could have saved the life of former F1 driver Justin Wilson, who was killed in an IndyCar crash at Pocono two years ago.

“Obviously there’s been a lot of talk, you need to understand that I think it’s a decision that helps us in the car in case something goes very wrong,” said Vettel in today’s FIA press conference. “For sure if you look at Formula One, the way the cars look, I can understand that people say it doesn’t belong on a Formula One car.”

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Spa-Francorchamps, 2016
Is Halo really as popular among the drivers as the FIA claims?
“On the other hand I think times are changing, we’re moving forward and I think if you put it very clear then it should be very clear for everyone and there shouldn’t be a doubt in your mind whether to introduce it or not.”

“I think if you were to offer the system as it stands, with the power that it has to give us additional protection, offer that to Justin Wilson some time ago and I think he would take it and we would all be happy to take it to help save his life.”

“Now we can’t turn back the clock. But I think knowing something is there that helps us in certain scenarios it would be ignorant and stupid to ignore.”

Last year Wilson’s younger brother Stefan, who has also raced in IndyCar, said he “doesn’t know how you can be against” the Halo if it would save drivers’ lives.

Fernando Alonso added his voice to the support for Halo and rejected claims it might have made his crash in Australia last year more dangerous.

“I think nothing really will affect the exit from the cockpit, as I understood, from the FIA studies, so that will be the same for me,” he said.

“Definitely while you are in the air, my only worry there was if something could impact with my helmet so if I have the Halo there probably I would be a little bit less afraid of any injuries.”

“If it looks shit, it is shit”

Romain Grosjean, Haas, Interlagos, 2016
Magnussen: “Formula One cars aren’t meant to be ugly”
However Halo continues to face vehement opposition from some drivers who questioned whether it was necessary and said it will spoil Formula One.l

“I don’t like it,” said Max Verstappen. “Of course at the end of the day you have to respect the decision of the FIA.”

“But I think since we introduced the Virtual Safety Car that reduced a lot of risk when you are speeding under the yellow flag in a race. And then also with the wheel tethers, they are quite strong at the moment. So I don’t think you will lose a wheel very easily.”

“And when there are parts flying around from the car it’s not really going to protect you. So I don’t really understand why we should need it.”

Verstappen also criticised the Halo’s appearance. “I think as soon as I have that thing on the car, I don’t like it, and I’m not even sitting in the car. The excitement is gone before I’m even sitting in the car.”

Kevin Magnussen agreed with Verstappen. “It takes away some of the passion that Formula One is all about. When you look at the car, it’s ugly. Formula One cars aren’t meant to be ugly.”

“There’s a reason that a Ferrari is more exciting than a Mazda. It’s passion, and if it looks shit, it is shit.”

2017 F1 season

Browse all 2017 F1 season articles

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.

Posted on Categories 2018 F1 seasonTags ,

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

  • 79 comments on “Wilson’s fatal crash shows F1 must have Halo – Vettel”

    1. unless f1 goes racing on ovals he is comparing apples to oranges. the speeds that wilson was driving at when he hit the nose is far greater than what f1 cars would normally be driving at in similar conditions. Not to mention the safety and construction of the indycars are far INFERIOR to what f1 cars have so the chances of a similar accident happening is next to none. Not to mention didnt the nose come down from above? the halo wouldnt have had much chance of protecting from a vertical strike.

      I kind of find Vettel being a narcissist being that he tries to impress the public with his goodie two shoes declarations about safety and this halo bs but on track he is the exact opposite and a whiner about blue flags.

      1. @cplchanb Wilson’s death had nothing to do with the design of the cars or the fact they were on an oval & the exact same thing could easily happen on any F1 circuit.

        At the time Wilson got hit by the nosecone he had slowed down as the caution had been out for a few seconds so they were well below oval speeds (From memory he below 150mph when he got hit).
        And nosecones have come off F1 cars in accidents many times over the years so its just as possible that sort of accident could occur in F1.

        Additionally the design of an Indycar is not inferior to F1 as they are put through & have to pass all of the same FIA crash test’s that an F1 car is put through. In fact an Indycar is put through some additional crash test’s & has additional crash structures in place when compared to an F1 car because of the higher speeds they run on some of the ovals.

        As to the Halo. The nosecone did come from above, However it came down in-front of Justin & not on-top of him. Had Wilson’s car had the Halo on it the nosecone would have struck the front part of the top bar & not Wilson’s head so in that accident the Halo would 100% have saved Justin’s life.

      2. @cplchanb that’s pretty insulting to Indycar but also wrong. You certainly would not say that if you saw Scott Dixon’s huge crash at Indy this year (especially from the turn 2 grandstand where I was sitting for the race), watched the car split in 2 but the survival cell remain intact and watch him immediately get out of the car.

      3. “Not to mention the safety and construction of the indycars are far INFERIOR to what f1 cars ”
        You went full retard, never go full retard. IndyCar are not subject to FIA and their standards in many aspects exceed those of FIA.

      4. coming from a guy who recently rammed his championship competitor on purpose, we can safely disregard Vettle on this matter.

        Note that he is currently banned from taking part in any FIA safety campaigns.

        KMAG has it right, safety is *not* the number one priority and anyone who trawls out that line is not capable of abstract thought.

        Racing formula 1 cars *is* the number one priority. If safety were the principle concern as so many people are saying then since it is their number one priority they should stop racing, that would be the safest thing to do.

        Then with the safety sallys gone we can continue to have a mildly risky racing series to watch and perhaps some better drivers coming into the sport.

        I am sorry that a few people have died in the past few years but they knew the risks and they also had more chance of dieing in road traffic accidents than they did on the track.

        If it is a legal concern, make the drivers sign a waver.

        1. So basically you want to use the exact same reasoning against it as was used for hard helmets, full face helmets, safety belts, increasing runoffs, proper barriers rather than tree’s, the high cockpit sides, the hans device & every other safety device that has been implemented.

          Through the 60s/70s Jackie Stewart was regularly told to stop racing if he felt it was too dangerous while he was fighting for better car/circuit safety but in hindsight he was 100% correct with regards to every argument he was making. Would anybody today argue against any of the things he was pushing for at that time?

          1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
            28th July 2017, 13:28

            @gt-racer how do you feel about covering up the wheels?

            1. @fullcoursecaution Why not, I think most of the futuristic concept’s that have been released have had some form of cover around of or at least infront of the wheels (Like Formula E & Indycar already has) actually looks quite nice.

              Plus it’s not as if Formula 1 cars haven’t had closed wheels in the past.

            2. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
              28th July 2017, 15:18

              Damn your pragmatism @gt-racer I was trying to trip you up!
              Personally I like those futuristic concepts, with full canopies and architecture around the wheels. I feel this is the correct direction of travel for future F1 (Wip3out stylee), and have been a proponent of the integrated full canopy solution since before the halo debate arose.

              However, I simply cannot stomach this stopgap half-fix halo business, I detest it with every fibre of my being, for the sole reason that it looks utterly farcical. I may run the risk of being branded ‘stupid’ by salt merchant Mr. X, but like a kid with broccoli, extolling the benefits won’t convince me otherwise, and it seems there are many who feel the same.

    2. Fukobayashi (@)
      27th July 2017, 15:52

      It seems Seb’s community service has begun.

      1. @offdutyrockstar You could make that suggestion if Seb hadn’t been saying the same for over a year already.

        From March 2016.

    3. these are some stupid comments by verstappen and magnussen. F1 cars have been ugly as for years.

      1. Fukobayashi (@)
        27th July 2017, 16:00

        Aside from the T wings, thumb noses, being about 2ft too long and massive front wings, I think this years cars are…

        Yeh you’re right.

        1. Lol… though tee wings I can deal with

      2. I think I agree with K-Mag a little bit though…. I think the halo looks really ugly and whilst I’ll get used to it, I’ll still think it looked ugly. I got used to the stupid thumb noses but I always thought the cars looked terrible and looking back on them now, I still think they look terrible! I look back on the early years of me falling in love with F1 and the cars looked awesome. That was a big part of it back when I didn’t know much about the drivers, teams or sport.

        I hope that as it’s now decided that we’re going with the halo, everyone can focus their efforts on that and we may end up with a better looking design. F1 cars looks sleek and sexy with every detail finely sculpted – even the drivers helmets are covered in aerodynamic devices. The halo looks completely out of place on a car like this – it just looks bolted on and aerodynamically inefficient.

        1. @petebaldwin I think many of us harken back to the cars that first got us hooked on F1. I seemed to have tuned in to domestic, and all race cars from a very early age. My Dad knew a lot about cars and was (is) a hobbiest so I was building model cars at an early age. So I’ll always have a soft spot for the Ferrari 312T3 (which was also my first Tamiya model kit) and the Williams FW07. Love Senna’s McLarens too.

          Certainly Gilles’ F1 tenure brought regular television coverage of F1 to Canada via the CBC in 78, and I was perusing library books for my racing kicks before then.

          I, like you, hope and expect these halos to look better once integrated, eg. I truly didn’t mind Mercedes’ take and would like to see, what I would expect would have to be, a beefier version of that.

          I would expect to see something different going on with the cars wrt the sidepods and the air-boxes as the halos tie into them and affect airflow. They’ll now be cranking up the wind tunnel work big time all the way until, well…do they ever stop?

          And if the bodywork changes behind the driver the front wing ought to as well, I would think. What will next year’s cars look like overall? Certainly sticking with the inevitable bolt on prototype that was necessary would be disastrous from an ongoing performance standpoint, and the halo can only truly work on a car that is to be competitive, by being well integrated.

    4. Evil Homer (@)
      27th July 2017, 15:53

      Didn’t Justin Wilson get struck with a front wing coming down from the air? It didn’t hit him straight on.

      I don’t see how a Halo could have helped him to be honest (RIP Justin)

      Also he was driving Indy. Oval tracks are banked and when you crash with the crowd barriers means that debris will be pushed back to the cars. F1 is not like that. We have runs offs and don’t race on oval tracks.

      Seb is a 4 time WDC so we must consider what he says – but I don’t think F1 has the risk like Indy to make such a bad choice to do Halo- Liberty will be regretting this FIA decision in 10 years time- People don’t want to see the best in the world in cotton wool.

      I think Dana White from the UFC should make sure his fighters don’t ACTUALLY hit each other!! not safe……………………….

      1. It was the nose cone and it struck Wilson on the forehead at a slight downward angle if I remember rightly. The current design of the halo would have blocked or deflected the nose cone.

        1. Should be pointed out that Pocono has in the past been described as a road course because it isn’t like any other oval track that has ever existed – 3 corners, each modelled on a different track and are generally slower than your average oval corner – so the argument that “it’s an oval” (and therefore can’t be compared to F1 tracks) doesn’t hold up. Nascar even has gear changes there (I know, sounds ridiculous but apparently it’s better for them to use 2 gears) – the point being that of all ovals for Justin Wilson to have crashed at, it’s the one that is most like a road course to drive.

          @evilhomer you’re right but that makes the Halo even better than the aeroscreen, or sticking with the cars as they are – it provides better protection from more angles than the screen would. Justin Wilson’s most likely would have survived had his car had the halo fitted – in my opinion, the screen options tested in F1 wouldn’t have saved him.

      2. @evilhomer

        Didn’t Justin Wilson get struck with a front wing coming down from the air?

        Yes, but he wasn’t stationary when it happened, he was travelling at superspeedway speeds. That being so it seems clear the me there’s a high chance it could have done so.

        My only reservation is that he was above average height for a driver, presenting an additional problem from that point of view, and the obvious point that Halo was designed for F1 cars, not IndyCars.

        1. Evil Homer (@)
          30th July 2017, 15:07


          Fair call. I just don’t want to see F1 doing a knee jerk reaction to an issue that may not be there.

          It’s F1, there is risk but we don’t want to see our hero’s hurt either!

      3. @evilhomer The nosecone came down with, say, 30 mps. Wilson was travelling about 5 times faster than that. So the impact was nearly frontal.

    5. Well it is clear now what deal Vettel made
      which prevented him from getting a penalty. Can’t beleive this guy.

      And I Just can not beleive this is really happening. There must be something that can be done te prevent this from happening next year.

      1. Vettel always voted for Halo. He is not expecting some readers to believe him.

      2. @bartvander Vettel was staunchly pro-Halo long before his recent run-ins with the FIA:


    6. I think this all Halo this is all about a claim from the Bianchi family to the FIA.
      Introduced without proper testing and implemented because i has to? … yeah right.
      Should be something under the table, related to the Bianchi accident.

      Good that Verstappen and Magnussen issued the DNA of F1..

    7. Sorry Sebastian, I don’t believe a word that comes out of your mouth. You’re Ferrari’s gold plated political puppet, with a side interest in the FIA, nothing more.

      The other drivers have given much more honest opinions both for and against.

      1. Just started watching F1 three weeks ago?

        Welcome to the sport. You should google 2016 and see who said what about the halo.

        1. + 1 – maybe JC stands for Jesus Christ ? In which case I can see why he wouldn’t need the Halo. He’s already got one permanently fixed over his head.

    8. Well, we will vote with our feet, won’t we?

      Personally, I feel that if you use Vettel’s argument, you don’t have any choice but to put a roof on the car and cover up the wheels. If you don’t do that, the drivers are still at some slight risk, and if you are in the zero risk camp, then that is unacceptable.

      You can still call it F1, but the audience will drop by millions.

      You’ve made your millions, Vettel, so it won’t affect you if you’re salary dropped to that of a Porsche driver, but a few younger drivers will be a bit miffed.

      1. You can still call it F1, but the audience will drop by millions.

        I think you are wrong, but let’s see in a few years. People said the same things after the sound of the engines changed, when we had these truly ugly noses and so on.

        1. The effect would have been felt throughout the casual fans but the last few years have already destroyed that audience. I don’t think the halo well put people off who stuck with the sport through the new engines, DRS, stepped noses, thumb noses etc etc….

      2. @Dustybloke
        Why the strawman argument ?

    9. I’m surprised. I’d never expected Vettel to be completely close-minded to other perspectives…..

    10. I agree with Vettel and I disagree with Vettel. I think the halo is an opportunity to improve safety and could possibly save some lives and prevent some injuries. In this I agree with Vettel.

      I’m not so sure I agree that it would have made a difference in Justin Wilson’s accident. I would go so far as to say it ‘might’ have. We will never know for sure. It would likely not be comprehensive in preventing an accident such as the one Felipe Massa had with a small part.

      But, this is a transitional device that continues a progression that has long been in place in F1 already. The regulations regarding exposure to the driver’s body and head have been tightening progressively for years now. No doubt this has increased the safety factor for drivers. Should this progression be halted because some object to the next step being the halo device? I do not believe so.

      To those saying that Justin Wilson’s accident could not have happened in F1 are totally missing the point. The commonality is the fact that in open cockpit racing the head is exposed. To say it could not have happened in F1 because of tracks, runoff or other reasons is to ignore the glaring fact that the head is still exposed in F1 as it is in IndyCar. Once an accident starts there is no one who can say with a certainty exactly how it will evolve. Cars roll, parts come off, walls, barriers and other objects come into play. All that can be done is to engineer the best safety features and practices possible.

      Is the halo device comprehensive? No. It is a step in an ongoing progression of safety for the drivers in our favorite form of racing.

    11. Justin’s crash was a once in a million situation where part of the broken nose from Sage Karam’s car bounced off another car and came down directly on top of his head. I believe it would have passed through the top of the Halo. Plenty of (unfortunate) video out there to confirm this.

    12. I think the world champion is a better judge than all of you.

    13. Herr Vettel is probably repeating precisely what Frau Vettel
      instructed him to say about the Halo etcetera…..

      Either that or the black flag any other F1 driver would have
      immediately earned for deliberately driving his car into another
      competitors car midrace in Baku, was not waved because the
      in-house political arrangement he has come to with the former
      Ferrari team leader turned FIA Director was set up precisely for
      situations like this one. Very murky indeed.

      ‘White man speak with forked tongue’ !

      ( only very old F1 fanatics like me will recognise this ancient
      Hollywood Western expression placed by third-rate screenwriters
      in the mouths of pretend native Americans. )

    14. I think KMag has just lost the support of @mazdachris !

      1. @george This is an outrage that will not be forgotten.

        1. As a proud owner of a MX-5, I second that @mazdachris. :)

    15. Using Vettel logic, isn’t it ‘stupid’ to go racing at all? We should just stay in out homes all day with the windows closed and doors locked.

      Of course I understand what he’s saying, but that kind of wording shows someone who is not willing to compromise at all. Don’t try and argue with a person like that, you’ll get nowhere.

      Imho, we need a kind of halo, but not the current design which has hardly seen any development as yet. Some kind of compromise should be struck. I’ve posted an idea before but here it is again (sorry):

      1. With roof segment to help protect from tyres. Somewhat similar to an LMP1 roof.
        I’ll stop posting these now. My point is to highlight there are many different central stem halos that might possibly work, and even allow a driver to escape if the car is on its roof. I hope I’m not being “stupid”.

      2. That looks like it would massively interfere with drivers getting out of the car in a hurry. Also it doesn’t really offer any protection for objects hitting slightly offset from the front or from the side.

        1. See above with regards side impact. Also, I disagree with the escape comment. It would be much better than the current Halo for getting a driver out of the car (from the side) in an Alonso style incident for example.

          1. Except you’re assessment doesn’t match the recent press event about the Halo.

            Also, both of your designs ignore physics and if you even remotely play out how to conceive your concept in real life you quickly end up with something much worse than the halo.

            Additionally, in situations where neck or back injuries are present the last thing you want is to try and contort the driver out through a side angle which your concepts require.

            A straight out extraction is the way to go and fastest if the driver is unconscious (that’s why racing suits have handles designed into the shoulder pads).

            Last comment, your concepts would gain a lot of volume to support the impact of 15x the force of an F1 car which the current Halo does. The COG would rise dramatically. Smart!

            1. in situations where neck or back injuries are present the last thing you want is to try and contort the driver out through a side angle which your concepts require.

              Totally agree, you make a good point. But why has this not been raised with regards the proposed Halo? Surely it makes extraction more difficult even if it is still possible vertically?

              In response, there is nothing stopping a concept like above having a pinned connection at the front, and similar to the padding around the driver be removable under certain conditions.

    16. Common sense is Halo could make a difference where there are large pieces of debris flying through the air. Maybe it isn’t adequate enough in that pieces can still get through the gaps between the steel bars and the car, nor is there any guarantee the car will be travelling forwards when colliding with debris, but this is better than no safety device.

    17. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      27th July 2017, 19:55

      Will we see more erratic driving now? If lunatics like Kyvat feel even safer in their halo caccoons are they gonna take even stupider risks? Also it may be very marginal but being slightly enclosed has to effect special awareness even if minimal. It’s not for me, the reduced appeal in the sport isn’t worth the very marginal risk of a loose tyre hitting a drivers head after breaking off a tether. Head protection is here to stay and that’s a good thing, however the halo specifically I will give till 2020 before a better solution is implemented.

    18. I see a lot of mentions of Justin Wilson being hit from above by the nose cone, but I’ve watched the replays of the accident a few times and he pretty much hits it straight on.

      There are slow-mo videos of the crash where it can be seen clearly, and it does look like the current halo design would have deflected the nose cone.

    19. Saying you can’t be against because it would save driver’s lives is like saying “you can’t be against canceling F1 forever because it would save driver’s lives.”

      Nobody is against saving lives but there has to be a better option to do so. We’ve seen shield variations that actually made the cars look better, even though they were only slapped on and not yet integrated into the design. Why not develop those further before using this abomination.

      1. @dh1996 They will continue development on those & other solutions that are brought forward, But they want something on the cars for 2018 & teams need to know what it is now so that they can lock down there 2018 designs with it integrated into them & right now the halo is the only viable option hence why they went with that.

        The Halo may not look great, But it works & just as importantly there are no downsides to running it (Looks aside) as there are with the screen solutions so it’s ready now while those screen solutions are not.

        Think of it this way. The halo is viable & ready, If they decide not to run it just because people thin its ugly & something tragic happens next year which the Halo would have prevented. What do you tell the family of the driver involved, The media & anyone else that start’s asking why the thing that the sport knew worked that would have prevented that injury/death from happening wasn’t been used?
        Do you think saying it wasn’t been used because people felt it looked ugly is going to be seen as a good excuse? In that situation the FIA, F1 & all those against the halo are going to be ripped to shreds in the media & the FIA/FOM & maybe even the teams are likely going to face legal action for failing to do everything possible to prevent injury/death since they had something that they know works.

        As to the drivers that are against it. If it saves one of them I think they will very quickly change there tune just like all the drivers that were lobbying against the HANS device were after it was shown that it probably would have saved Dale Earnhart (Who was incidentally one of its most vocal critics) & obviously has saved many others since it’s introduction (Including many who were against it beforehand).

    20. Racerdude7730
      27th July 2017, 22:20

      Maybe I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure there were articles written saying the angle the nose hit him the halo would not have helped. So really the halo would have only saved Henry the last 20 years.

      1. Oh it would have only saved 1 life, so who cares right?

    21. Racerdude7730
      27th July 2017, 22:23

      In my eyes the halo has more negatives on safety the positives. The screen would be 10000x’s safe and prevent way more injurys then the halo. I think it’s dumb to do down this road. Just because vettle didn’t like a half ass design someone made don’t mean it should be abandoned. If fighter jets can have screens with no visual distortion so can F1

      1. Oh fighter jets can do it so can F1 huh?

        You’ve really thought that through I can tell… well reasoned, logical, and you haven’t ignored reality at all.

        F1 fans are so smart!

      2. Anele (@anele-mbethe)
        28th July 2017, 12:49

        If you follow prost on Twitter you would know an areo device similar to the shield was tested and he confirmed the issue of distortion. I’ll trust the people with 8 world championship between them

      3. If we look back to the sixtys and the costing protons f2 car or the F1 brabham that brabham experimented with we can see the way the aero bubble could go.
        Or going off on a tangent bring back CanAm.

    22. Shots fired from k-mag… What did Mazda ever do to him lol

      1. And Mazda’s history of building phenomenal rotary engine cars (RX3, RX7 etc.) and the tuner base behind these types of cars is the very definition of passion. Even today aftermarket support for the glory years of Japanese performance cars is not dropping off because people are in love with these types of cars.
        But yeah if you are talking about modern Mazda then it’s very understandable.
        /Peace out.

    23. There is no compromise, it’s either Halo or no Halo (for now). The FIA decided yes, so that’s it.

      Just shows the immaturity of some of the drivers really. Happy to talk down what earns their massive paycheck. Reminds me of Ecclestone a bit. Complain until it falls apart, great plan!

    24. Fairings are going to be added to the Halo by the teams.

      It will be a development area for sure, curious to see who exploits it the best.

      That’s what F1 is actually about by the way.

    25. Sure it helps for some freak accidents. But it introduces new risks, because it takes longer to get out of the car and the cockpit is less accessible. Plus Max stated that the visibility is worse because of it.

      1. @anunaki What Max said is contradicted by every other driver who when asked about visibility with the Halo said it wasn’t an issue.

        The central pillar will be no wider than many of the ariels & other things currently down the center of the front of the car (The 2018 design will be thinner than what was trailed last season). The top bar is high enough that again it won’t be an issue in terms of visibility.

        And again as the FIA have shown in the media briefing yesterday getting out of the car with the Halo isn’t a big issue & in certain situations (Such as Alonso at Melbourne last year) it’s actually made easier as it prevents the car from rolling over as far.

    26. It’s completely ignorant to say F1 need halo because what happened in other series like Indycar, Indycar is a totally different matter, with much higher speeds and zero run off on oval tracks. What Indycar needs is not necessarily what F1 needs, because we are not Indycar series! Not even every F1 driver would want to try a Indycar race and take that that level of risk.

      Anyway, it’s certainly strange to see so called F1 fanatics fail to understand why other motor sport fans are so into racing and why some drivers are into racing in the first place, or why Isle of Man TT will be celebrated despite all the fatalities.

    27. SevenFiftySeven
      28th July 2017, 11:36

      I don’t like the Halo, but what can I do except laugh at the inherent contradictions laying between a sport, which by nature is dangerous, and the idea of safety. Jerry Seinfeld, the quintessential embodiment of observational comedy, put it best some time ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgOUgrOHuFc

    28. To all those using the ‘sport is dangerous deal with it’ type argument….. To me that isn’t much of an argument against the Halo.

      Yes the sport is dangerous but just because its dangerous doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to make it safer where possible & mitigate the risks as much as possible.

      This kind of argument is exactly the same as what was been used for just about every safety device that has ever been introduced. Hard helmets, full face helmets, safety belts, increasing runoffs, proper barriers rather than tree’s, the high cockpit sides, the hans device & others.
      Through the 60s/70s Jackie Stewart was regularly told to stop racing if he felt it was too dangerous while he was fighting for better car/circuit safety but in hindsight he was 100% correct with regards to every argument he was making. Would anybody today argue against any of the things he was pushing for at that time?

      As Anthony Davidson pointed out on Sky’s practice coverage when he gets into his LMP1 car he doesn’t feel any more safe than he does in an open cockpit car because racing a car at speed in an open or closed cockpit still has many of the same risk’s.

      Using the ‘it must be dangerous’ type arguments as a reason against the Halo is as idiotic now as when those against all the other safety devices I listed above made the same argument against there introductions.

      You have to make the sport as safe as possible, That is a part of the FIA’s (And every other governing body’s) job. Yes there will always be an element of danger & yes that must be accepted, However that isn’t a reason to not make things as safe as possible to try & ensure the chances of injury/death are reduced as much as possible. If the FIA or any other governing body failed to do that then there frankly failing in there role.

      Literally the only argument against the Halo is that it looks a bit ugly….. But that in my view isn’t that good an argument given all of the positive’s it brings with regards to safety & using the looks as a reason not to bring it in is nothing but short sightedness.

    29. Anele (@anele-mbethe)
      28th July 2017, 12:46

      Lol Kevin Mags comment regarding mazda and a Ferrari because safety in a Ferrari will be more advanced. I’ve said all these drivers rejecting this will eat their words when it saves a life and I hope it’s one of them

      1. I’ll be brutally frank!
        The drivers who are calling for more ‘safety’ are being paid ludicrous amounts of money.
        A member of any Military unit in a hostile zone is paid a pittance in comparison.
        I’ve been saddened over many years by the loss of certain Formula 1 drivers for whom I had great respect, but it comes with the territory.
        Grow a set or ‘retire’ Seb.

      2. I don’t agree. I could die of a heart attack racing 10K at the weekend. If somebody dies from running do I think they should ban running or make everyone carry their own defibrillator? Course not. Death is a fact, I don’t know why so many people want to pretend otherwise.

    30. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
      28th July 2017, 13:04

      Come back Bernie all is forgiven

    31. Vettel: the safety man’s champion!

      How ironic.

    32. I’m surprised. I’d never expected Vettel to be completely close-minded to other perspectives…..

    Comments are closed.