Halo could delay Force India’s 2018 car

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Force India say the decision to introduce Halo next year could delay the completion of their 2018 chassis.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

The mid-season driver rankings prompted much debate over whether Max Verstappen driving better than team mate Daniel Ricciardo, who has out-scored him so far.

Maybe this statistic makes it more clear: Verstappen’s laps spent ahead of team mate is 185 out of 249. That includes the laps he lost to Ricciardo by being called to pit prematurely in Monaco.

If that had not happened Ricciardo would hardly have had any laps ahead at all.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Harry Palmer and Sue!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

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.

39 comments on “Halo could delay Force India’s 2018 car”

  1. The results / statistics do show Verstappen is beating Ricciardo, in both qualifying and the race, but it’s much closer than people perhaps realise. Ricciardo has always been right behind Verstappen, and has taken advantage whenever an opportunity presented itself (such as Baku). Compare that to, say, Raikkonen, who is not only being beaten by Vettel consistently, but by quite a margin most of the time.

    How many laps did Ricciardo lose to Verstappen in Hungary when Verstappen took him out on lap one? We’ll never know, but in response to comment of the day, you can do the ‘what if?’ thing to argue either case and eventually it all becomes irrelevant.

    1. @strontium True, except for the Hungary part. Those 249 laps were all laps they were both on track. Not all laps there were during so far. So this is lik Bart has said and would be around 215 out of 248 if we count in the Monaco call. But still, yes Ricciardo would be right behind Verstappen most of the time.

    2. @strontium

      Yeh no doubt Ricciardo is doing a way better job than Raikkonen but that doesnt change Verstappens dominance over him.

      1. Yeah, To be fair though still a rather different kind of dominance (like, compare 2010-2013 with 2014-, for example).

  2. @COTD

    Ricciardo has spent 64 laps in front of Verstappen. From those, 47 came from Monaco.

    Of the remaining 17, 1 came from Bahrain where Verstappen stopped a couple of laps earlier than Ricciardo, and while it’s hard to tell, it looks like Max would have stayed in front after both did their pistop. 15 come from the Chinese Grand Prix, where Verstappen started 11 positions behind Ricciardo due to a qualifying mechanical failure, yet managed to overtake the aussie during the race. The last lap Ricciardo spent in front of Verstappen comes from the fact Verstappen finished a lap in the Spanish Grand Prix while going back to boxes, and was qualified as 19th in that first lap while Ricciardo was 4th.

    On the other hand, 51 of the laps Verstappen spent ahead of Ricciardo come from Silverstone, where Ricciardo had a qualifying engine failure plus a grid penalty.

    Point is, Ricciardo has actually spent very few laps ahead of Verstappen on merit. 10 of the laps in China (since 5 happened because Verstappen stopped first), and that’s about it. On the other hand, Verstappen has led Ricciardo for 134 laps on merit, not due to strategy differences or pitwall mistakes.

    I don’t know. I’m a fan of Ricciardo, but I think it’s very clear that Verstappen’s bad luck is masking the fact he’s being outperformed in both qualifying and race. And I doubt he’s unaware of this fact.

    1. I still believe maybe Ricciardo could be compared to Grosjean last year (but in a different aspect as Grosjean led the points battle ahead and nobody would say Gutierrez was better). Point is, in the beginning and middle of the races, Gutierrez pushed harder, only for his tyres to come bite him in the end. As Gutierrez’ car often failed, he sometimes did so while going faster or looking better or in a better position than Romain. But invariably when they both went to the end, Grosjean was ahead. Also when there was a safety car or circonstances where pure attacking driving was rewarded, Grosjean stepped up. Apples and oranges of course, but I wonder how much of the gap between VER and RIC is due to agressiv driving not being unravelled because of abandons that flatter VER’s early efforts. (Though still believe VER is better driver than RIC… But by how far I don’t know)

    2. As an Aussie, I am a huge RIC fan.

      But I would have to say that VER is simply faster. That kid is special. However RIC is no slouch, and does seem to be more consistent.

      I think Keith mentioned the difference between them (whilst difficult to tell) is around 0.08s. Given RIC’s heavier frame, I do wonder how much his higher centre of gravity is costing him over a lap.

    3. @casjo I agree that Max should be ahead of Daniel, despite Max’s many more mistakes, and not for Vertappen’s worse reliability, not for COTD. Max has made many mistakes particularly on starts but he’s also made a lot more ground on starts hence Max being many more laps in front of Daniel, their qualifying record is similar but Max has been slightly quicker in qualifying. This season with less degradation being in front is pivotal, and Max despite the mistakes has had more laps in front than Daniel.

  3. Is that Ronnie Peterson film released? I can’t find anywhere to buy it.

    1. It premiered in Sweden 16th of August, so it’ll be a few months before it’s released for purchase (physical och digital release), I think.

  4. The article in which Otmar Szafnauer saying that the Halo was ‘rushed’ for 2018 ignores the fact that the FIA told all teams over a year ago that a head protection solution was definitely going to be introduced for 2018 & that unless a viable alternative came up they should all plan there 2018 designs with the Halo in mind.

    I gather that in line with that brief from the FIA that several (If not most) of the teams had the Halo in mind with there early 2018 concept’s knowing that it was more than likely going to be the concept the FIA went with given the problems that were been faced with the screen/canopy alternatives.

    So it’s not as if the Halo was suddenly sprung on them a month ago, All the teams & drivers were fully aware that something was going to be in place for 2018 & that the meeting planned for mid/late July was going to be the deadline for the FIA’s decision.
    Should also be noted that the mid/late July timeframe was what the teams themselves told the FIA should be considered the latest that a final decision be made.

    1. @gt-racer

      We dont know at all what information was out about the Halo for the teams. The loose pressrelease statement you talk about is not something you can design an f1 car around for an midfield budgetstrapped team.

      1. @rethla I wasn’t referring to any press release, I got my info directly from people from the teams.

        Halo & alternatives have been discussed at every strategy group meeting, Every other meeting between teams & the FIA as well as several drivers briefings. They have all been kept fully upto date with developments & teams were told in July 2016 that something was definitely going to be in place for 2018 (Teams even had a vote on introducing something for 2018) & that barring an alternative they should all make plans for the Halo.

        In fact every team was asked to run with the Halo over the 2nd half of 2016 not just to gather more data & opinions but to also give them some real world data to help with there 2018 designs.

      2. @gt-racer

        This information about the halo being to rushed to properly implent in the 2018car also comes directly from the teams, why do you choose to rubbish that part then?

        1. @rethla Sounds like it is coming from one team, and is full of ‘ifs’…if their design doesn’t pass the test initially for example. If they design it well and it passes quickly, then no problem.

        2. @rethla Just saying that based on what I have been told by people within F1 (Teams, FOM & others) that I don’t believe what Otmar is quoted as saying in that article to be accurate.

          The FIA were very aware that making a decision too late would cause teams problems & as I said in a prior comment they made there final decision when they did because that was the time-frame the teams told them would be when they needed to know as July/August time is when they tend to lock down the next year’s designs.

          1. @gt-racer

            Yes there are alot of ifs. Remember how much problems pretty much everyone had with the new noses and getting them approved. Basicly everyone had to start the season with rough placeholder noses, imagine that with the entire monocoque.

  5. Re COTD, I consider the most important criteria is the Drivers’ Championship points, and by that Daniel Ricciardo has more points than Max Verstappen (117 vs 67). I also consider the second most important criteria is completed races, and again he has done that more times than Max Verstappen (8/11 races vs 6/11). By those two criteria Ricciardo is a better driver.
    I don’t like to mention it, but Verstappen was blamed for one of the races Ricciardo failed to complete. While it is impossible to know the outcome of that race had Verstappen shown a little more care at the start of the Hungarian GP, at a minimum I would have expected Ricciardo to have finished that race, in which case his races completed would show 9/11 vs 6/11. The result of that scenario would have been to reinforce the belief that Ricciardo is better than Verstappen.

    1. RIC is clearly the better driver, he knows how to stay out of trouble and to manage his car so it comes home in one peace. What use is driving in front of your teammate if it will break your car?

    2. I do love this straw-clutching Verstappen detractors do. There’s very little a driver can influence about a sudden mechanical failure, or being punted off at T1. Ironically the two times he hit another driver that I can recall (t1 in Canada and t3 in Hungary) he got away without much damage.

      1. If a car can not do a full race distance a 100kp/h but can at 99kp/h don;t do 100kp/h.
        If breaks can not last when breaking at 5 meters before the corner but do last when breaking at 6 meters, then break at 6 meters.
        It is nice that you can fight with Ferrari when going 100kp/h and breaking at 5 meters, but what will it bring you when your car will only last a couple of laps?

        It is easy, but something Max and Maxfans still have to learn.

        1. Going at 100kmph and braking at 5 meters in an inferior car will get you into the Ferrari.

        2. If a car can not do a full race distance a 100kp/h but can at 99kp/h don;t do 100kp/h.

          Tell that to Niki Lauda about 1984.

        3. Ah of course, Ricciardo is just choosing to be slow. Maybe Raikkonen is just choosing to be slow too, I guess that means he’s driving better than Vettel.

        4. marcelh, then, by that logic, would you claim that Ricciardo was at fault for breaking his car in the Russian GP or in qualifying for the British GP?

          It also has to be said that two of Verstappen’s retirements were caused by somebody else driving into him (Bottas and Kvyat causing the pile ups that took him out in the Spanish and Austrian GPs respectively), rather than the car itself breaking down.

          In terms of retirements due to mechanical failures, it’s three to Verstappen and two to Ricciardo – that doesn’t suggest to me that Ricciardo takes any more care of his car than Verstappen does.

          1. Well did RIC break his car after that ? He did got a lots of point, about twice as much as Max whom tries to win the race in the first couple of laps.

            And about Max. Spanish GP Max is going late breaking into the corner to be come the third car side by side where there is only room for two to safely get into and get out. With three 2 will crash in to each other and they did. Just like SPA last year, going for a hole that really isn;t there as there is simply no room in the corner.
            For Austria well Kvyat is a human wreking ball, i do not understand that he still drives a F1 car.

      2. Michael Brown (@)
        19th August 2017, 20:28

        People choose when Drivers’ Championship points matter.

  6. Wish the real story was…..Force India’s 2018 car could delay halo.

    1. As I understand it, it was announced in 2016 that Halo was to be mandatory in 2018. The only reason 2018 was chosen is because there wasn’t enough time to have cars ready for this year. Now, a year later, we have a team saying they still don’t have enough time to get ready. Halo or a similar means of protecting the driver has been in the political wind for several years, so one would have expected even this year’s car should have had the capability to be easily modified to accommodate Halo. There shouldn’t be any reason why Halo would have affected the time line for Force India’s car.
      I guess Force India are going to have to use more steel and have a higher centre of gravity than they were hoping to use.

  7. That Lauda line at the end of the Peterson trailer is a nice chills up the spine moment. Looking forward to watching the full Doc.

  8. About Mercedes’s Technical Help to Honda, were Renault get the same treatment?

    1. @ruliemaulana, Mark Hughes’s story seems to have a strange logic to it though.

      He has claimed that Mercedes does not want to sell an engine to McLaren because they would be too competitive, but then claims that Mercedes are providing technical assistance to Honda to help them produce an engine which is competitive with their engine. If Mercedes didn’t want McLaren to compete with them, why would they then sign over their hard won knowledge to help Honda and therefore make McLaren more competitive? That contradiction doesn’t make sense to me.

      With regards to Renault, there had been claims that Mercedes were helping Renault – however, those claims have been debunked now. It seems possible that somebody was confused between the historical Ilmor, which Mercedes took over and turned into their High Performance Engines division, and the modern Ilmor company that Mario Illien founded after he sold the original company, but not the name, to Mercedes.

      Now, Renault did employ Mario Illien, though Ilmor, to work on their engines, though that partnership has come to an end as Illien has reportedly now agreed a contract with McLaren to assist Honda. Perhaps there are those who seem to still associate him with Mercedes – even though he no longer has any links to them – and therefore spread those rumours, but I think that they are largely coming from a misconception.

      1. Thanks for your reply.
        What I can’t understand is why it says “Technical help is being provided by Mercedes as part of F1’s engine convergence process” as if that was a mandatory task.

      2. I think the background to Mercedes helping out Honda (and in the past we have heard about them helping out Ferrari and Renault already in earlier years) is about the wish for the sport to keep things roughly equal. In order not to have the FIA introduce any further limitations on their own development, they quitly gave some helpfull info to make the others catch up a bit @ruliemaulana, Anon

        It is still up to Honda (and Ferrari and Renault) to actually use that information to make their engines as strong, or stronger. There is the difference with giving McLaren access to the Mercedes PU directly.

  9. What a time in F1 the Ronnie Peterson era was.
    In the Monza accident that lead to his premature death, the list of drivers in action is pretty mind-boggling:
    Team mate Mario Andretti, who claimed the title that same race; Gilles, Niki, Alan Jones, Jody Scheckter, John Watson, James Hunt, Riccardo Patrese, Clay Regazzoni, Carlos Reutemann, german touring car legend and Le Mans winner Hans-Joachim Stuck… and still Didier Pironi, Jacques Lafitte + Jean-Pierre Jabouille.
    And, of course, the two brazilians Emerson Fittipaldi and Nelson Piquet. Keke Rosberg was also a driver in that season.
    In retrospect, that makes at least three very quick and talented runners-up in WDC (Reutemann, Ronnie and Gilles) and seven drivers who ended up being champions at least once in their career, for a sum of 11 titles if I am not mistaken.
    There have been some great grids in history, and 1978 must be counted as one of them.

  10. Could delay it, but will positively make an already ugly F1 car even uglier.

Comments are closed.