'Halo 2', Ferrari, Red Bull Ring, 2016

Formula One cars will have to be fitted with Halo from 2018, FIA confirms

2018 F1 seasonPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

The FIA has confirmed Formula One cars will have to be fitted with the Halo head protection system from the 2018 F1 season.

“Following the unanimous agreement of the Strategy Group, in July 2016, to introduce additional front protection for Formula One, and the repeated support of the drivers, the FIA confirms the introduction of Halo for 2018,” the FIA said in a statement.

“With the support of the teams, certain features of its design will be further enhanced.”

“Having developed and evaluated a large number of devices over the past five years, it had become clear that the Halo presents the best overall safety performance.”

The Halo was tested by every team currently competing in Formula One during last season. The structure is designed to protect drivers from being struck by substantial pieces of debris such as wheels.

Halos, 2016
Pictures: Every 2016 F1 car with a Halo
The design of the Halo was criticised on aesthetic grounds when it was tested last year and the decision was taken to postpone the introduction of a new head protection system from 2017 to 2018.

The sport’s governing body tested the Shield, an alternative to the Halo, at the British Grand Prix weekend. However Sebastian Vettel, who ran the device, was strongly critical of it.

Several drivers have publicly disagreed with the plans to introduce a new head protection system, including Grand Prix Drivers Association head Romain Grosjean, who has said he does not want “closed cars” in F1.

Formula One began research into improving head protection for drivers following a series of serious incidents involving flying debris in F1 and other categories.

The announcement followed a meeting of the Strategy Group at which, for the first time, all the teams which are not members of the regulatory body were represented. In addition to the six teams who have voting rights on the Strategy Group Renault, Toro Rosso, Sauber and Haas all sent observers.

The FIA also said “a new approach to cost control” was approved after receiving unanimous support. Plans for changes to the engine formula in 2021 and “measures aimed at improving the show” were also discussed.

2018 F1 season

Browse all 2018 F1 season articles

Posted on Categories 2018 F1 seasonTags ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 302 comments on “Formula One cars will have to be fitted with Halo from 2018, FIA confirms”

    1. Seems a little unfortunate. To bad they don’t have time to come up with a better solution.

      1. The are coming up with that limit date. They could have delayed it another year. Halo is aesthetically inconvenient and it doesn’t protect the driver from small debris such as springs, screws, bolts or even a small rock from the asphalt. Such a partial solution should have never be implemented. I really prefer closed cockpits instead of this. I remember some amazing concept cars from some top teams and all of them have closed cockpits: Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, or Renault.

        It was too good to be true, FIA has made again another generation of ugly cars applying a partial solution against the will of the drivers.

      2. Grosjean has calmed down, Kvyat hasn’t gone flying yet, Sainz is doing his crashes at ground level. They need this stuff more in F2, F3 and F4.

        1. Very good point about the need to make the solution work for lower tier championships where there are far more likely to have accidents (if only because there are far more races in various series over the world!).

        2. This was thought at the time of Maldonado, …and there are no plans for his return.

          1. …I’m sorry, …seriously, I have two questions:
            1.- Halo would have saved the life of Jules Bianchi ?, or would have complicated things more ?.
            2.- I remember the accident at Spa 2012, if Grosjean’s car falls on Fernando’s head the “Halo” would have helped ?, or did that accident complicate?
            …I would like to know.

            1. Rick (@addvariety)
              19th July 2017, 21:01

              @luis There’s no use in looking back what could’ve been. Only time will tell if the halo is an improvement in such strange accidents.

            2. It would not have helped in Bianchi’s accident. But would have prevented the deaths of Surtees, Wilson and, arguably, De Villota.

            3. I don’t agree that the halo would’ve prevented Surtees or Wilson. If you have a piece of debris or a wheel coming straight down on the helmet, there is still a possibility that the accident would be the same. If you look at the side on picture of the Haas, the helmet is above the halo structure so a wheel at the right time coming down might still have the same outcome? For me the jury’s still out on the halo, I think it would save in some situations but fail in others where no halo would be survivable

            4. F1 is safe as it is. Deaths occur in MotoGP, occur in boxing, occur in football and occur in freaking Golf. Pretty much every sport has risks. Schumacher isn’t in the condition he is currently in due to F1, he is in the condition he is in because of skiing. Something millions of ppl participate in every year, yet no one ski’s wearing armored vests. There comes a point at which safety goes too far, this point has been reached. What is next? Unmanned cars, controlled by drivers from behind a screen? F1 has become such a joke. I have serious doubts about following this sport any longer. And that’s not just because of the halo.. I’m better off with MotoGP. It has real heroes, no pay drivers, nice rivalries, exciting races, less domination, high driver influence, good safety balance, less politics. Everything F1 lacks. Well, except for the rivalries maybe. In MotoGP, even privateers can fight for victory (Tech 3). In F1 there are 1 or 2 teams that have a subcription to victory, the rest can take the scraps. Now, f1 cars are finally good looking, and they come up with this politically motivated ugly halo again. Get out of here ffs. They are destroying our sport.

            5. @addvariety I disagree completely with your comment.

              The best way to predict what sort of accidents the halo will work well for in the future is to go back and look at whether the halo would have likely changed the outcomes of previous accidents. Without doing this, there is no way to actually determine with any level of confidence whether the halo is actually going to help, or hinder in future accidents.

              Learning from history is how society evolves and improves. If you ignore the past, you repeat the same mistakes in the future.

            6. I disagree with you @spafrancorchamps.

              I support head protection, be it the halo, or the aeroscreen, or the shield. It is a matter of safety and it should be given the highest priority. Looks and aesthetics can come later. Do not forget that drivers risk a lot every Sunday just to exhilerate us. So as fans, we too must support something that is designed to make the sport ever more safer. The driver’s life is of paramount importance.

            7. @Akshat, I take risks going to work everyday. Crazy drivers on the road driving with medication and alcohol, or poor visibility. I take the chance of getting hit by a car (or dangerous cyclist in my country) every single day. Yet, I don’t earn the millions that these F1 drivers make. If they can’t stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen, let them go through the traffic every rush hour and see how dangerous that can be.

      3. IMO sounds like a power move. FIA flexes their muscles to the newcomers of Liberty media. FIA “deal with that” Liberty.

        On safety I’ve always agreed with the philosophy of protecting the drivers by improving track safety then car safety, but some tracks force the FIA to push for more car safety, tracks where it’s impossible to properly protect the drivers, tracks like Monaco. If F1 and liberty wants to race in more street circuits it must improve car safety, so I guess the halo is that.

    2. #NotMyF1

        1. Rick (@addvariety)
          19th July 2017, 21:04

          @hugh11 That’s basically an LMP1 with parts of the bodywork opened up to look like an F1 car. And a fully closed cockpit. Although I agree the design looks nice, this is not F1 by far. F1 is open wheel, open cockpit.

          1. Agreed on that. But if they have to push all of this safety on us, and decide to go in that direction, then that’s how I’d want it to look. Frankly I think this years cars without T-Wings but keeping Shark Fins should be kept how they are. Don’t see how much a halo will help, will hamper drivers more than it saves them (wouldn’t have saved Bianchi, and only about 10% of the time would it have saved Massa, depending on where the debris is)

          2. @addvariety

            F1 is open wheel, open cockpit.

            Currently, but it doesn’t have to be. At its core F1 is the highest class of single-seat auto racing and that’s it. The shape of the car is secondary to its purpose. It doesn’t have to be open cockpit and it doesn’t have to be open wheel. By the way, remember W196 Streamliner? Probably not. It was a closed wheel F1 car and it won in 1954 GP’s at Reims and at Monza, and then at Monza again in 1955. Nobody was screaming that it wasn’t F1.

            1. And I’d much prefer a modern, well thought out closed cockpit over these goofy Halo cars.

            2. Very good point.

            3. Tony Mansell
              20th July 2017, 10:33

              how do you know they weren’t? Banning it pretty quickly suggests otherwise.

            4. @maroonjack I agree completely!

              F1 is not about being open cockpit or open wheel. It’s purely the top level of single seat motorsport.

              If people who are so averse to change were in charge, we would still have front engines. So many improvements have come into F1 and completely changed the cars. I would welcome closed cockpits and closed wheels from both a safety and performance standpoint.

            5. Rick (@addvariety)
              24th July 2017, 20:56

              @maroonjack I have to admit you made your point well. I concede although I’m not in favor of a closed cockpit.

              Don’t get me wrong: I find the design of the “2025 vision” awesome, but currently I don’t think it relates to F1 (yet). Or maybe I’m just too happy with the 2017 car designs. ;-)

        2. That closed cockpit is complete nonsense though @hugh11, it could never work. You can even see how the drivers helmet is more or less pushing against it there already.

          Just look at how big and clunky and even boxy modern LMP1/2 cars closed cockpits are @maroonjack, a closed F1 cockpit is unlikely to look elegant either. Sure, in F1 they would be allowed to be narrower (no theoretical 2 seater) but just google up the Deltacar to see how horrible a closed cockpit looks once you put it on a car with a narrow front – it is an enormous blob in the middle. To me the Halo still looks a lot better than that.

          1. @bascb Yeah, Deltawing is ugly, but I was thinking about something like the canopy of BD-5 Micro, integrated seamlessly into the bodywork. Now before anyone says it, I agree that this little plane is ugly too, but it’s an example of a closed cockpit on a very narrow single-seat body, which could potentially look pretty good.

            1. I get what you are saying, but there is a reason those cockpits end up looking like they do – they need to take car of making a safetycell that can withstand quite a bit of force, whereas with a plane the backup plan is to just eject out of it, something that is impossible with a car @maroonjack.

              And you also have to consider that one would need considerable room around the drivers head/helmet to protect them from bashing their head against the canopy in case of an accident, that is why LMP cockpits nowadays have more or less vertical sides instead of being a nicely shaped dome.

    3. No one will watch then.
      Pathetic. I hope the teams or Carey do something about it

      1. Bit of a bold statement. I’m still going to watch as I’m sure will many others.

        1. Yes, i’m still going to watch with or without halo…..

        2. I would like to watch. It will depend on the cost. Note that Halo has nothing to do with my decision, it is the cost that is the problem.

      2. I’m going to watch it, I’m already used to having something between my eyes.

        1. COTD 😁

      3. I’m certainly going to carry on watching. Anyone who has followed F1 for a number of years are very aware of the changes over the years and this is no more severe than the alterations made to design following Senna and Ratzenburger’s crashes for the 1995 season…

      4. Lewisham Milton
        20th July 2017, 19:50

        The stupid pay-TV deal is a bigger problem if F1 wants fans in Britain to care about it.

    4. Nobody wants it, neither the drivers nor the fans.

      The halo looks ridicolous & totally ruins the look of those beautiful (from this year) cars.

      1. It is essential the drivers have some form of additional protection besides their crash helmet. Most countries have some sort of health and safety legislation, and if F1 wants to race in those countries they have to provide a safe working environment for their drivers.

        1. Arnoud van Houwelingen
          20th July 2017, 11:46

          So in those countries there is no MOTO GP because that is a lot more dangerous then F1!

        2. Dangerous territory. There is a point of view ( much less heard today )
          that a major part of motor sport’s attraction ( moto GP, F1, Rallying,
          Indycar etcetera ) is the thrill some ( many /most ? ) spectators get from
          watching high speed motorised competition is the spine-tingling dangers
          the drivers/riders are subjected to. If that statement were not true,
          how would you explain the colossal dangers the riders in IOM TT are
          annually subjected to ? A sport which attracts huge numbers year upon
          year and shows not the slightest sign of dwindling in popularity.

          TT riders are travelling at speeds in excess of 150mph on relatively narrow
          hill-country roads with solid dry-stone walling literally millimetres away from
          their bodies and virtually every single year there are multiple deaths.
          Yet no-one questions the validity of IOM TT racing. Or shall we say….
          …detractors don’t form a really large majority.

          Compare that to the vastly safer driver situation of current F1 cars…….
          …..and I would suggest that the FIA is going too far with this one.

          1. I fully agree! Arguments that the rider’s or driver’s safety is paramount in racing are complete nonsense. IOM TT riders specifically get their thrill from the high risk factor involved, making the achievement of being fast while not making errors their main motivation to participate. F1 has completely lost this thrill already years ago, but it seems that the organizers have still not understood this and they are little by little killing the sport from both ends: participants and spectators.

          2. @loen I disagree that danger (in the form of a risk to the participants life) is a major factor in the popularity of any motorsport. Even the TT is about the challenge, not the danger. Sure, it is dangerous. People die pretty much every year, but that’s not why people watch our participate: it’s because it’s one of the biggest challenges to a motorbike racer in the world. If, somehow, the rider could be protected without affecting the race I don’t believe anyone would have a problem with that.

    5. No one wants to see drivers hurt – or killed.

      But few people in the business (or sport!) seem to support this. Fans. Drivers. Teams.

      So why is it happening. I am disappointed and frustrated at F1 – dull and getting duller.

      1. +1 I agree. This is a bad move.

      2. I know… It won’t be strong enough to stop what happened to Bianchi, and only covers about 10% of the danger area for what happened to Massa… I just don’t see the point

        1. +1 I’m not going to exaggerate and say I’m going to stop watching but this is definitely a step away from the F1 I became a fan of.

          1. @glynh, not picking on you specifically, but I do wonder sometimes what people really mean when they complain about this being a step away from the F1 they became a fan of.

            1. Anon. No worries, I guess it’s hard to explain but for me the idea of the driver being out in the open, alongside open wheels is what I think seperates F1 from something like lmp1 cars for example.

              If you close the driver in more, away from the elements, it changes the nature of the sport for me. A good example is when Webber took his helmet of in Brazil and showed how it must feel to be in an F1 car as opposed to a normal car.

            2. I’ve been a daily reader of this site for years. After this “decision” by the FIA I feel I have to comment for the first time. I’ve been a proud fanatic for more than 30 years. I think what glynh meant is that F1 is…in essence….karting. Open wheels, open cockpit. The same feeling that a simple gocart gives. But on a level I can only dream of experiencing. I do not believe this would have helped Jules…maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it would’ve helped in Massa’s accident. Maybe again for Wilson or Surtees. I’m all for the safety of the drivers but this is a real turn off for me.

      3. My reaction:

        Please No!

        At least make them out of polycarbonate

        1. Sorry to break your bubble @johnmilk, but even the Halo, when made from strong carbon fibre has a titanium ring in it to make it strong enough. Nothing polycarbonate could come close to the sturdyness of it.

      4. Rick (@addvariety)
        19th July 2017, 21:17

        Exactly, even in the early days of Fangio, Moss, Stewart, Lauda up to Senna, Schumacher nobody wants to see a driver hurt, let alone killed. However, F1 is a high speed motorsport that comes with danger. I think the FIA is over reacting, look at all 2 wheel motorsports such as MotoGP, by default that is much more dangerous.

        To make MotoGP safer, let’s add two wheels for stability so drivers will not fall off, now you have an F1 car. To make F1 safer, let’s add full head protection, now you have an LMP1 car. To make LMP1 safer… well you get the idea. Let F1 be F1 please.

    6. So 9 out of the 10 teams have said no to Halo, some drivers don’t want Halo, majority of fans don’t want Halo, so the FIA pushes it through anyway, good work guys

      1. They have to. This is a legal decision more than anything, and the other options are not yet working.

        What remains to be seen is whether the teams or liberty push for something nicer from next year.

        But you’re right, there does seem to be strong opposition to it, unlike what their press release suggests.

        1. Still waiting for evidence that doesn’t contradict itself of Halo working.

    7. That bar in the middle also looks like it will be obstructing the field of vision of the drivers. Did any of them made a remark on this during testing phase? Too bad they forced this option on the teams, while 9 out of 10 were against it.

      1. From what I can remember, some drivers thought it was fine, others thought it was obstructive, while others thought the entire thing obscured the vision all around. Blind spots are already a huge issue in F1, so let’s improve both safety and the quality of racing by making them worse.

      2. I am pretty sure every driver who gave more specifics than “F1 don’t need no protective device” mentione that visibility was fine, the middle stalk is in an area where they already have antennae and more importantly, drivers don’t actually look straight ahead all that often, they always focus on the next corners (or the car next to them!).

        1. Well at least that’s positive. Now I am wondering, which team will add some wings on the Halo first : )

          1. None of them – it’s a standard part. The only addition I could see being added to it might be a camera mount or two.

    8. What’s next… make motogp closed cockpit and four wheels, because safety.

      1. I was more thinking using tanks?

        1. I support your idea. Let’s turn this into proper Halo Wars!

    9. I thought maybe a late April fools, but the article is, as always, genuine.

      This is out of the blue, which makes it also a rash, and not to mention, very very desperate move by the FIA. It’s almost like they’re trying to prove a point about improving safety, without realising that they’re not actually doing it.

      If I thought my week couldn’t get any worse, it just has.

      1. To add to that, by doing this so prematurely, F1 has effectively committed itself down a path without even having looked into alternative solutions enough. Therefore meaning that they’re effectively conceding not finding a better solution, even if one is available. They abandoned the shield after one driver tested it for one lap. I didn’t like that solution either but it just shows how pathetic the FIA really are

        1. Luke Harrison
          19th July 2017, 19:54

          Formula One began research into improving head protection for drivers following a series of serious incidents involving flying debris in F1 and other categories.

          Go on Youtube, Search for FIA Institute and you get results like this

          Just because it’s not fitted to a car and driven round in front of fans, doesn’t mean it’s not tested or thought of.

          You’d assume if it has made its way on to the race Car it’s already had some sort of preliminary test and conversation around it.

      2. It is hardly out of the blue. The test with the Shield was explicitly meant to be ahead of this planned meeting, BECAUSE they were to give the final word on whether they would go for the Shield next year or stay with the Halo. Given Vettels reaction, it was clear that the Shield is not (yet?) ready for being used.

        1. Rick (@addvariety)
          19th July 2017, 21:20

          I find it really, really, REALLY strange that the worldwide motorsport organisation called FIA bases it’s entire future decision on a single test, with a single team and a single driver who drove a single lap with the first concept of said shield.

          It really says something how extremely well organised, structured and professional this organisation is. Well done FIA!

          1. One test of the shield and its thrown out? If WEC can make windscreens, which is basically what the shield is, work for the drivers then why can F1 not? If airplane designers have made enclosed cockpits and/or windscreens for fighter planes since the 1930’s which are bulletproof or resistant to bird strikes and have no reflection issues why can F1 not? If there is a legal obligation to incorporate head protection, tell the fans. Why run multiple tests of HALO but one lap of shield? Why when amateur designers and professionals alike around the world can produce concepts of beautiful closed cockpit F1 cars can F1 take the ugliest and in my opinion least effective approach?

            F1: engage fans in London one week, completely disengage them with the prospect of HALO in 2018 the next.

            I feel like bashing my head against a brick wall on this one…

            1. because it (shield) is a flawed concept

          2. Not really @addvariety. The desicion to put the Halo on the cars was already made for this year. But then they postponed it to give a bit more time to find other alternatives, like the shield. Since in the given time no viable alternative was shown to offer a clearly better solution, they stay with the plan of introducing the Halo for next year.

            By the way, while they will now focus on finetuning the halo to be as best as it can be, they only put further research on the alternative solutions on hold, with the target of possibly introducing something better in future years. For 2018 it was needed to make a clear commitment now, so that it can be an integral part of the chassis.

    10. To be honest, the white halo doesn´t look that bad at the Williams.
      I am sure that designers can create more attractive solutions for the halo.

      1. They can’t – it’s a standard part provided by the FIA.

        1. Surely the teams can paint it though or have a colour that blends into the livery … ??

          1. They probably can, but given the fact that teams just look at performance and not looks it’s just not gonna happen.

            Well, at least I have half a year to find out which radio station I can receive with a live coverage of F1.

            1. Yeezy918 (@offdutyrockstar)
              20th July 2017, 9:55

              Well, at least I have half a year to find out which radio station I can receive with a live coverage of F1.

              ��😂��

    11. Ok so if it has to be the halo, it has to look better than that. They can’t compromise on safety but they need to massively improve the aesthetics of it and they also need to work hard on a better solution for 2019.

      1. I am pretty sure it will not be black though, @optimaximal, @petebaldwin, when teams incorporate it into the livery it will look a lot less bad. And they will further refine the form, as stated in the FIA desicion, so yeah, let us hope they manage to make it look somewhat better (not sure how to do that though.)

    12. It’s not sexy, but I’m sure I’ll get used to it.

      I will not complain about the aesthetics of a device designed to protect the lives of drivers who I enjoy watching and writing about.

      Unless all the drivers speak out against this approach and in favour of another, I think we should all be prepared to accept it.

      1. Absolutely right!
        But I do wonder if the cockpit sides will now be able to be decreased a bit.
        When Ferrari were testing the Shield I asked if it had to come off when a driver exited the car in the pits, and I ask the same here. Does the Halo stay integral to the car when the driver exits, in which case are the raised cockpit sides really necessary?
        Exposed cockpits are not solely an F1 problem, so we should expect them to filter down into the lower formulae over time. And probably a good thing too.

        1. The Halo that they will introduce will indeed be an integral part of the chassis @nickwyatt. The cockpit shield does not come off the car either for the driver to enter/exit.

          I think lower sides still is not an option, because of side impacts – noses of cars that are NOT airborne

      2. Thank you for the dose of sanity, @willwood

    13. Wishlist for 2018:

      BMW twin towers
      Ferrari extra wings (from 1998)
      Stepped nose
      2014 nose (preferably Caterham’s)
      Arrows wing on the nose (from 2001)

    14. So after one test with the shield they dump it for this monstrosity? The FIA are again alarmingly totalitarian, coupled with Todt’s aloofness, shows how out of touch they are.

      1. I was thinking the same thing. The shield didn’t seem to get a proper test before it was cast aside. Almost seems like something else is going on.

      2. @jmc200 @jmc200 I gather that they had to make a decision now to give teams enough time to design there 2018 cars with whatever they went with integrated into the overall design.

        They always said that whatever they went with needed to be integrated into the design & not something that was bolted on afterwards.

        1. True, hopefully if it’s worked into the design it will look less hideous. I still think that it doesn’t solve enough of the problems of head protection, and it possibly creates more issues for getting out the car if it’s upside down.

      3. In defence of the FIA, all the teams are in the process of designing their 2018 car. Every week there is a delay on an important part of the car like this affects the performance of the car. They should really have announced this right at the start of this season, but that didn’t happen. Now it has happened.
        I don’t know what the repercussions are now, but there would have been more and they’d have been worse if it was delayed.

    15. There seems to be no general consensus on introducing this as the best head protection device so I am surprised the FIA are going ahead with it at this juncture.

      It seems that as so often before F1 is rushed into making a poor decision which everyone then complains about for the next few years. I accept a decision has to be made at some point but there was no general agreement and the screen was only tested last weekend. Not that looks any more suitable.

      1. The Strategy Group locked themselves into this with their decision last year “to introduce additional front protection”. If they don’t now change something and someone gets injured the FIA and other Group members will be up for huge money because they had previously identified there was a safety problem and failed to act (basic OH&S). They’ve gone with the Halo because it is the least worst idea they’ve come up with.

    16. Crap, a bad move all the way along, is FIA really trying to kill F1 or what ? plus the Halo device does not make the cars 100% safe, there will be always a risk driving these cars.
      As nearly always one step forward two steps back from the FIA, again thank you for making the pinnacle of Motorsport look like crap and by not listening to fans.

      1. does not make the cars 100% safe, there will be always a risk driving these cars.

        @abdelilah So when will we get to the point of completely, 100% bashing Jackie Stewart?

        1. @davidnotcoulthard what does Jackie has to do with the Halo device ?
          @Martin the safety aspect brought out by the halo does not justify disfiguring the cars and lose an audience, plus it wouldn’t have saved Bianchi’s life so what’s the point anyway since it was introduced as a knee jerk reaction to his accident, this is yet another failure from the FIA to foresee things correctly.

          1. he safety aspect brought out by the halo does not justify disfiguring the cars and lose an audience

            Why does it not? And why would it have an effect on the audience? The ugly noses were for safety, they disfigured the cars and I don’t remember there being any great audience drop because of it.

            it was introduced as a knee jerk reaction to his accident, this is yet another failure from the FIA to foresee things correctly.

            Ok
            1) The halo was a proposal put forward by Mercedes
            2) It was Justin Wilson’s death that prompted the FIA to look more closely at the Halo proposal
            3) The FIA have been investigating improving driver head protection since Massa’s accident in 2009. I don’t think anyone could call 8 years of investigation knee-jerk.
            4) Are you seriously expecting the FIA (or anyone) to be able to predict the future?

          2. @abdelilah

            does Jackie has to do with the Halo device ?

            Nothing, which is why I quoted a specific part omitting the “Halo”, since the statement you posted applies to most (all?) safety-related things F1 has (e.g. replacing Halo with HANS, Green Hell renovation, stopping race when a driver can’t be rushed to hospital fast enough if need be, etc).

            As Martin said below

      2. plus the Halo device does not make the cars 100%

        Neither does every other safety aspect of modern F1 cars. Not making something 100% safe is not a good excuse to not do it.

    17. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
      19th July 2017, 19:25

      Well, in my opinion, the halo looks better than when they effectively put a windscreen on them. I don’t think many will agree with this though. But I do thing this is the better choice. It may not always prevent small objects from flying in (such as with Massa’s incident in 2009 but It overall should be much more sturdy that a windscreen and surprisingly, from Vettel’s view, the halo was far less distracting. I think I can actually understand why. The bar directly in front of you won’t exactly be in your line of sight the whole time and it should be reasonably easy to get used to. Whereas the windscreen won’t help quite as much with heavy impact and according to Vettel, the reflections were very distracting. Unless it got massively developed and improved, it would be dreadful on a street light lit track. I think if they work on the Halo for next year, they will be able to improve the look of it. I personally think the Williams one was by far the best when we saw it recently. It matched their livery really well.

      1. It looks ugly no matter how you slice it. This is terrible.

      2. @thegianthogweed – stop being so reasonable in a halo discussion… :)

      3. So fighter pilots have that problem i don’t think so. The Halo is only usefull vs wheels, small debri (Massa) will still pass and the structure is too weak to deflect cars or bulldozers.
        So Vettel tested an wrond canopy and now we have an Halo….

    18. This is pretty weak. The FIA are always forcing dumb stuff on the teams. I am all for driver safety, but I can’t stand this. Would this have saved Henry Surtees, probably. Would it have saved Massa from that damn coil spring, maybe, maybe not. It certainly would have not saved Jules Bianchi, and probably not Justin Wilson. It just does not seem like the answer to me.

      1. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
        19th July 2017, 19:34

        I think it will quite likely have saved Bianchi even if he did suffer life changing injuries. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I did think the first point of contact with his crash was his helmet, or at leased that took a huge amount of impact. With the Halo, it would be that bar (which would be pretty strong) and that would dramatically chance the impact. It will also be much more effective than a windscreen in that situation.

        1. Bianchi died from injuries caused by his brain hitting the inside of his skull following the massive deceleration he experienced upon hitting the truck and having nothing else to absorb that energy (F1 barriers, crash structures etc).

          As far as I know, the halo wouldn’t have prevented that from happening as it is designed to deflect objects and not dissipate energy.

        2. The Halo would not have saved Bianchi – it was a lateral impact collision, which given how he hit the tractor side on, would have likely sheared the Halo off on its hinge mounts and possibly caused additional trauma injuries.

          The Halo is purely a deflection device, but experts have already questioned whether it would have protected Massa (small items can still bypass the Halo) or Wilson (the Halo has to have an open top for extraction purposes and Wilson suffered a downwards impact from the falling nose cone).

          About the only 4-wheeler death in the last 10 years the Halo might have protected against is Henry Surtees, owing to the size of a tyre.

        3. @thegianthogweed

          I think it will quite likely have saved Bianchi

          The FIA report concluded it wouldn’t have (point 11):

          http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/12/03/fia-releases-bianchi-crash-report-findings/

          1. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
            19th July 2017, 20:41

            Fair enough. I did think I may possibly not have remembered the situation exactly right. I still think going with the halo next year will be safer than without it though. That is for sure or else they won’t have made the decision. I don’t quite understand why so many are against it.

    19. Isaac J Rosenthal
      19th July 2017, 19:30

      Next up;
      We need bumper structures around the wheels, front and back so cars don’t jump up anymore when touching.

      It is inevitable after the direction the FIA has steered itself in to. Ridiculous

      1. joe pineapples
        19th July 2017, 19:56

        Ferrari have been working on this since the Baku incident. If the driver becomes too outraged/erratic, the car is lifted off its wheels to prevent further violence.

        https://postimg.org/image/jd6jywatj/

      2. The end of the open wheels could have a safety substantiation as you suggest. It would bring new aero technologies and it would be applicable to road super cars. Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes would love it.

      3. Good argument against open wheels, even if it was sarcastic.

        Open wheels cause a lot of turbulence so t would be best aerodynamically if they were covered. I know, “not muh F1.”

        1. @mbr-9), course, there were the streamlined F1 cars of the 1950’s, such as the Mercedes W196 and Lancia-Ferrari D50, which had partially or fully enclosed wheels.

          You also had the chisel nosed cars of the 1970’s that tended to at least partially envelop the front wheels, whilst Ferrari experimented in that era with partially enclosing the front wheels with bodywork too – so it’s not as if enclosing the wheels hasn’t been done before.

          As you say, there would also be a significant reduction in turbulence behind the cars if you enclosed the bodywork – strangely though, given that the wheels are the biggest source of “dirty air”, as most put it, behind the cars, that usually tends to get overlooked when people complain about there being “too much dirty air” from the cars.

    20. I don’t get the hugely negative reaction towards the halo on this site. I agree, it’s not the most aesthetically pleasing appendage on the car, but if it protects one driver from a potentially fatal incident, then I see it as completely worth it.

      I also don’t understand why people tend to think that it’s a snap reaction. As I recall, we were meant to have head protection this year, but it was delayed for further testing and research. Clearly, we as fans haven’t been given access to all of the research, but that doesn’t mean that potential solutions haven’t been extensively tested.

      People have every right to voice their opinions of course, that’s what the comments section is for, but surely the FIA trying to prevent another fatality is better than mourning the next one?

      1. I think it’s hard to choose where to draw the line between safety and sport.

        This is an open wheeled open cockpit formula. Cars go at 200 mph+. It’s not table tennis.

        But this change just seems to lack the universal support that other precious safety enhancements got.

        1. No, it’s a single seater formula. The open cockpits are extra.

      2. “If it saves ONE life, it’s worth it”

        ….um, not nessasarily?

        You could make pedestrians wear helmets when walking in the city… and if you did this world wide, you would literally save HUNDREDS of lives a year… the question is, do you want to live in a nanny-state world where they make you wear a helmet to walk to the store?

        I would rather take my chances without one. Feel free to wear your Walking helmet… I won’t be.

    21. It seems odd that after one test with the shield the halo would get approved for use. Normally the things Vettel suffered from could be addresses with how the shield is mounted or the plastic can be manufactured differently.
      As this is being labeled a safety modification, I’ll be interested to see if they require it on the F2 and F3 cars as well.

      1. I think the point here is that the designers will be rapidly moving in to the design requirements for next year. And so the FIA were forced by their own stated timetable to decide quickly. Shield wasn’t really tested – and certainly wasn’t developed to the max – in time, and so they have gone with the ‘safe’ option. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see ‘Son of Shield’ back for 2020.

      2. Not odd at all, @velocityboy, because in effect the Halo HAD already been approved for this year, then it got postponed to next year to give everyone time to try and find a more elegant solution. The only thing that seemed might work (the shield) showed in that first test that there are too many problems with it to be able to get it ready for next year.

        So they got back to introducing the Halo for next year, and maybe finding something nicer for future years.

        1. Halo never got approved. What was approved was “some form of frontal head protection”. Had Halo itself been approved, there wouldn’t have been so many teams voting against it in the meeting.

    22. Lehonard Euler
      19th July 2017, 19:35

      What about a closed canopy? or a small roof on top of the driver’s head?
      I believe not many designs were taken into consideration, and they rushed into the decistion…

      1. Actually a gazillion possible designs were considered Lehonard. But closed cockpits were not, because F1 wanted to stay with open cockpits.

        1. Luke Harrison
          20th July 2017, 8:30

          Closed cockpits were….

          Google/YouTube FIA Institue.

          There’s a common theme up and down this entire comment section that the FiA haven’t considered or tested any other viable solution.

          They have. Just because it’s not strapped to a working F1 car and used during practice. Doesn’t mean it hasn’t been considered, discussed and tested some other way.

          Perhaps Keith could do an article about the FIA Institute and the work they do.

          1. Luke, I did not mean to say that the FIA had somehow neglected that one. I know they have done extensive research on them, just they were not chosen as a possible solution for F1 (also because of many issues from visibility to cooling to extraction that would have to be solved), preferring a solution like the Halo (or indeed the tested shield and the RB aero screen) that would keep the open cockpit

    23. My initial reaction was to reel off a list of profanities as I’ve been opposed to the halo from the start, however I’m now going to try and look at the positives of this.

      Firstly, a decision on head protection was long overdue, and had it dragged on any longer the topic would have become a total farce. Especially had someone sustained another head injury.

      Secondly, given that the halo is now a rule rather than an unpleasant idea, it will force F1 engineers to try and produce a solution that is more aesthetically pleasing and integrated than the last prototype. F1 is about marketing for the manufacturers and ugly cars aren’t good for the brand.

      Lastly, I have hope that we’ll see some interesting aero solutions that aim to take advantage of this new appendage.

      Regardless of the above, if the halo doesn’t progress to the point where it looks like it belongs on an F1 car, drivers and fans are going to complain about it indefinitely.

      1. F1 engineers won’t be allowed to touch it (apart from Ross Brawn’s new ‘team’) – it will be a standard part designed to fit the current strict rules around cockpit side protection.

        The FIA know full well that if the team aero guys were allowed near it, they’d design it to a bare minimum weight & size and add aero-influencing bits all over the shop.

        1. Sorry, I didn’t mean that it would be a non-standard part, but that it would be in the teams’ (read: marketing departments) interests for the halo to look as good as possible, and their engineers may therefore start feeding back more to the FIA than they have done previously in order to help ‘improve’ the device.

    24. If nothing gets done about the head protection, then a driver will get seriously injured or killed one day. Sooner or later but that will happen. The FIA are obviously aware of that and I cannot blame them for not wanting to be partly responsible for that injury or death. The discussion has been going on for some time and I can understand why they ran out of patience and took a decision to finally do something.

      The teams will now be forced to work harder on developing alternative proposals as the halo is not popular among F1 fans. I believe that the halo will be replaced by something more aesthetic in a year or two.

      1. I think so too. I can easily imagine that a version of the Shield idea is developed quietly in the background and introduced for 2020.

        1. @nickwyatt Hey, I’m happy to talk to you again after a longer pause! Agreed, things constantly change in motorsports and not only safety issues get addressed. The ugly noses disappeared quickly and this year the cars generally look better than they did before. I would be surprised if active work was not going on in the background in order to improve the looks of the head protection system.

      2. …but doesn’t the halo trap a driver when a car is left upside down @girts? Isn’t there a risk we are introducing a new danger here? This has not been properly thought through yet.

        1. @john-h That is a good point. To be honest, I have not read that kind of analysis anywhere so far. The FIA would do well to explain such details. If trapping is indeed a concern, then I would say that it’s the possibility of being struck by debris * likely consequences vs the possibility of being trapped after an accident * likely consequences – which one of these two gives the bigger result?

        2. In their simulations and tests the FIA mentioned that the Halo actually help prevent a car from “digging in” vs when it would be “just” the roll bar @john-h, @girts
          The driver who tested it was able to extract himself from it in that situation too. They deemed the risk of doing so slower than currently to be weighted positively compared to the lowered risk of the car digging in, since fires spreading from the fuel tank are far less of a risk with better fuel tanks nowadays (some of that from Craig Scarborough from 2016).

          1. The driver who tested it was able to extract himself from it in that situation too

            I just can’t believe it… but ok I believe you!

            Thanks for the Scarborough reference, I think I remember that one. If I were a driver though, I’d still always opt for the ‘get out of the car as soon as possible’ policy. It just seems to _feel_ like the right philosophy.

            1. @john-h Not the best/most relevant response I’m going to put out here but people did think the same about seatbelts, to be fair.

      3. Drivers sign a contract and are well aware of the risks of motorsport. It’s not the FIA’s fault when something goes wrong. Anything can go wrong and it usually does.

        1. @spafrancorchamps, you will find that the legal system in most countries will not allow the idea of “oh, it was just bad luck” to stand in the event of somebody being seriously injured or killed.

          Although not common, we’ve seen a number of successful lawsuits in the world of motorsport over the years for driver injuries or fatal accidents – the Donohue family come to mind as one example, and it’s not that long ago that Marussia were brought before the Health and Safety Executive in the UK for de Villota’s accident. It would be an extremely flimsy legal defence to try saying “anything can go wrong and it usually does” – especially since, in reality, most of the risks in the world of motorsport are relatively well defined and therefore can be addressed.

    25. What a pathetic thing..how will we see the driver. F1 is risky and that how it is. What if using halo still a driver gets hit and is injured then what ??

      1. What if using halo still a driver gets hit and is injured then what ??

        So what? Massa was hit in the head and injured while wearing a helmet, are you suggesting there is no point in the drivers wearing a helmet?

    26. I suspect this has come out of the strategy group (who were meeting today I think?) because teams need to be defining the tub and other key structural parts of 2018 car around now.

      And, rather than postpone until the 2019 season and be seen to ignoring their #roadsafety (ignoring the Vettel outcome) mantra, the FIA have simply said the halo is the best option as it stands. So teams need to use it until something better is fully tested.

    27. In recent months, F1 began to move in the right direction: faster cars, a more fan-oriented approach, and decent racing … and now this! The Halo has got to be the ugliest thing I have EVER seen on a Formula One car. The raised cockpit sides of 1996 (especially the Ferrari 310) were somewhat ugly, but they were nothing in comparison to the HIDEOUS halo! It looks like a back-to-front carbon fibre THONG :-O

      After 25 years of watching F1, I may be looking elsewhere :-(

    28. Luke Harrison
      19th July 2017, 19:58

      It’s quite interesting people are against this sort of thing and want it to remain an open cockpit series.

      Yet, a team puts out a render of F1 in the future, which, if I remember rightly, all have closed cockpits, everyone gets excited about the ideas.

      Very confusing this.

      1. You are no doubt thinking of the Renault concept car, where many were fawning over design (including saying that the enclosed cockpit looked like a great idea). http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/04/19/renault-reveals-1300bhp-f1-concept-car-2027/

        We’ve also seen the wildly enthusiastic response for the flights of fancy that have accompanied the concept designs from Red Bull and McLaren, as well as the various fan projects which have included the idea of an enclosed cockpit. As you say, it seems to be something of a contradiction that there have been many well received concepts where nobody has complained about a fully enclosed cockpit, but at the same time complain now when people suggest that the series moves towards what is still a predominantly open cockpit.

    29. Just when I was becoming optimistic about the future of F1.

      The drivers don’t want it. The teams don’t want it. The fans don’t want it. Abhorrent decision.

      Looks like 2017 is my last year of F1. Roll on WEC, MotoGp and WRC.

      1. Luke Harrison
        19th July 2017, 23:01

        So, is it the apartment for against them? Because two sports you selected are enclosed vehicles.

        Both with various protections to avoid injuring the driver.

        I’m unsure why F1 shouldn’t do the same thing?

        1. To be fair the halo does look worse than WEC/B-segment hatchback windshields.

          1. Luke Harrison
            20th July 2017, 11:46

            Oh. Don’t get me wrong. It looks stupid. But to complain about a device that is giving head protection and then saying your going to watch forms of sport that have enclosed head protection is just silly.

            Its like saying your switching off because you don’t like hybrid engines and then saying you’re going to get into LMP1…

    30. At the very least, since this monstrosity is being imposed, the teams should be forced to use different colors for each driver, maybe make it match the driver helmet. And they should mount a camera to have a view of the drivers eyes.

    31. We should ban f1 till the drop it then. Stop buying merchandise and ignore their sponsors. We are not animals.

    32. Really? I thought that the Halo was the least popular of the proposed head protection solutions. Didn’t the FIA say that the Halo would not have protected Bianichi? And I don’t see the benefit in protecting from small parts like those that injured Massa. It looks like they’ll be safe from tires, hopefully.

      In my opinion, I am not convinced by any of the solutions. I just go with what looks least worst. They all suffer from simply bolting on a shield or Halo to the cars, and those each have their own drawbacks that don’t make them a clear solution. I think the cars need some design overhaul to better incorporate either these solutions or other solutions in the future.

    33. And here we go again…

      Another 3 months of halo opinion articles incoming.

    34. Absolute disgrace to see this happening, or not…?

      The rumour seems to be Chase Carey is backing this because they want to make F1 more pure by bringing gravel traps back along with some track and car improvements that would make F1 lean to Indycar-like racing with Le Mans-light-like cars and with more street circuits and high speed crashes in the future it would be brought to a halt if someone would die that quick after Bianchi again. This is the only rumour I’ve heard whispered that seemed logical if you know modern day business strategists.

      Then again, many people here cry wolf over not watching F1 now that is getting implemented. Don’t lie.
      We will still all watch it.

      1. A) Chase Carey won’t be able to ‘bring back gravel traps’ without cutting the race hosting fees, because most tracks have had to do away with them to make the tracks more attractive to bike racing and other series.

        B) it was mentioned that Alonso’s barrel roll into the gravel trap last year would have been significantly more serious had his car been running the Halo (it might have dug into the gravel) and he’d find it much harder to escape. Likewise for Wehrlein at Monaco this year.

        1. Luke Harrison
          19th July 2017, 23:04

          Got a source for your Alonso statement. I understood it would have made no difference, and he only left the vehicle on that occasion so his mother knew he was alright

        2. @optimaximal

          A = And I have good sources cutting race hosting fees is exactly what will happen. What did you not understand about Indycar-like races & ”track improvements”? Furthermore multiple articles already posted on this site alone are hinting they will renegotiation the current Bernie-made deals with hosts.

          B = This is utter nonsense, and you should be ashamed of reacting with this kind of misinformation.
          Security-controller and Head Race manager Laurent Mekies said the following;

          ”We put one of our chassis upside down with a halo, we put Andy Mellor (a consultant) into it as the worst case scenario and we asked him to come out exactly in Fernando’s position and incredibly he did. (…) So we feel in that case, the halo actually creates breathing space for the driver.”

          NOWHERE at all was a potential increase of ”digging” mentioned.

          Stop lying.

          1. @xiasitlo A) I’m sorry, but ‘unnamed sources’ don’t cut it. For a start, Liberty have pretty adamant they weren’t going to bend over and renegotiate Silverstone without them exercising that break clause, which guarantees nothing.

            b) I’ll admit I missed the news back in January where this was mentioned. You also trimmed the quote, removing the following:

            “When we showed that to the drivers, they were not impressed with Andy’s speed to get out of the car, but they actually asked to try it before the halo is introduced so one day they will get that training.

            Source – https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-simulated-alonso-s-australian-gp-crash-with-halo-865841/

            Luke, before reading the above article, I was basing it on the discussions that took place closer to the incident, such as this article from Andrew Benson – http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35870589

    35. Who is this lone team that voted for it? they need to be hung drawn and quartered!

      1. That sounds rather extreme given that the FIA appears to have made the entire vote moot.

    36. F1 2018 just became FF1

      Flip Flop 1

      Can’t believe this gets pushed by the FIA

      1. Can FOM fix this?

        1. I dont know if FOM can but they can put a ton of pressure on the FIA i would think. F1 is F1 with or without the FIA

          1. @racerdude7730, @anunaki in safety issues, FOM can not really be seen to pressure FIA, and that is as it should be. Also, F1 w/o FIA isn’t allowed to be called F1 or a world championship.

        2. No. FOM is barred from getting involved in regulation changes due to an agreement it made with the EU back in 2001 (to regulate what had become an effective monopoly – a monopoly the FIA was only allowed to hold for safety reasons). Yes, the settlement has been honoured more by its breach than its obedience, but I am sure the FIA would not hesitiate to get the lawyers involved if the FOM stepped on its toes on this matter.

    37. I don’t really care about halo, I love seeing the evolution of cars and I expect it to evolve over the years. Personally I think it looks futuristic and is a step towards the future f1 concepts we’ve seen.

      My only problem with it is just how safe is it ? Sadly I don’t think it would have saved Jules, but realistically I’m not sure any car modification would. I question the Massa crash and wonder if the spring could get through the gaps and cause the same incident ? Could it have actually made that worse by deflecting the spring downwards ? The gaps just look too big to protect against smaller parts.

      1. it certainly would have saved Henry Surtees.

      2. I don’t understand why the Massa crash is always brought up. Not wishing to be callous, but he did survive. And since then the helmets have been made stronger to further improve the drivers’ protection from small pieces of debris.

        Since then we have had several examples of near-misses with larger pieces of debris or entire cars. De Villota suffered serious injuries due to a cockpit intrusion. Outside of F1 we’ve seen the Surtees and Wilson fatalities due to hits from large pieces of debris. Surely incidents more like this are the focus here.

        1. Im not sure of the reasons Keith but i have read in different places they feel like this would not have helped in the Wilson crash for some reason. So there is very few to almost no situations this could have helped a whole lot over the last 20 years really. Its a knee jerk sorta deal

        2. @keithcollantine, I understand what you are saying and my knee has stopped jerking, but I question whether the halo would have helped De Villota as the intrusion was off-center and at eye level.

        3. I don’t understand why the De Villota crash is brought up, how ridiculous is that??? She hit the LOADER of a TRUCK during a TEST! Simply park the truck far away next time or even just close the loader! Problem solved!

        4. Most cockpit intrusions are from relatively small debris, simply because most debris is relatively small. Excluding car-sized debris, the larger the item to be deflected, the rarer it is. It’s also quite possible to get injured from small debris if it’s sufficiently energised, and medium-sized debris newly deflected in by the Halo (a spring would be a prime example of this). So there’s more risk of a Massa-type accident.

          The Villota accident was at the wrong angle for Halo to help, though it is unlikely to have been a hindrance either. I don’t know enough details about the Wilson accident to comment, but Halo would definitely have saved Surtees.

    38. I believe when your time is up, its up. Halo or no Halo. And most of the teams, drivers and fans hate it. It makes no sense to impose. If the drivers understand and are willing to take the risk, why do it. I am sure they care more about their lives then us.

      1. But it’s not your time we’re discussing.

    39. While this ‘halo’ design is another testament to the usual FIA knee-jerked, snot-nosed, aero-first rulebook, there is a more positive side.

      Could allow FOM to expand sponsorship reach to the corrective lens industry. “At 200mph, the world’s best cross-eyed drivers use Essilor lens – now you can too.”

    40. RIP Formula 1.

      1. You mean all the safety advances have failed to kill F1 until this “Halo” thingie came out? Not even the ball-like full-face helmet or stupidly thick tyre barriers or the killing-off of tracks like the Nordschleife or Spa, leaving us with wee versions, mere shadows of what came before?

        Err…OK /s

    41. You know what would be much more effective at increasing safety than the Halo? Getting rid of drivers like Kvyat.

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        19th July 2017, 21:53

        @mashiat Apparently, the Halo is Kvyat-proof. Todt’s going to drive a F1 car with a Halo on it and Kvyat will smash into it at top speed to see if it holds up. My money is on Kvyat!

    42. So, the best brains in the world came up with a sandal that covers less than one tenth of the area it’s trying to protect. It’s the equivalent of a shark cage for use in water that also has piranhas and electric eels… What’s the worth in making such an incomplete job of it?

    43. Also, 90% of the teams don’t want the halo, I’m guessing somewhere close to that percentage of drivers don’t want it, majority of fans absolutely detest it, so…guess what? Halo it is!

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        19th July 2017, 21:51

        @mashiat lol:-)

      2. @mashiat In fairness to the FIA, A lot of drivers, teams & fans were against the higher cockpit sides & a majority of drivers were also firmly against the HANS device.

        If you want to go back further drivers were also against things like helmets & safety belts. Sir Stirling Moss has said many times that when his father insisted he wore a helmet he was against it because he didn’t want to be seen as a sissy. Jackie Stewart’s safety crusade in the late 60s/early 70s was also seen in a similar way, He was routinely mocked by the media, fans & even other drivers for asking for things like more runoff & better medical facilities.

        Yet today not having any one of those things would seem weird & backwards.

    44. The Halo from the T-cam view looks pathetic. Looks like the car is playing with hula hoops.

      1. You mean the track side cam, helicopter cam, in car cam, and mobile phone cam? If so then you are correct

      2. well they are moving to the stupid “cockpit-side” cam anyway

    45. Let’s look beyond the ‘aesthetic’ arguments and the ‘F1 is open wheel, high risk’ arguments.
      The FIA spends a lot of its time and resources promoting road safety. The very last thing it would wish for is another Henry Surtees type tragedy in a series that it manages and controls – let alone *the* foremost series it controls.
      The FIA has to err on the side of caution in the public space and to show it was being very, very resonsible. If it did not, there would be increasing pressure in various nations to restrict motorsports to the point of oblivion.

      1. Spends a lots of resources promoting road safety and barely punish a driver that hit an opponent on purpose.
        Yeah.

        1. That would be “influencing the championship.”

          1. Which in this case would have been the responsible thing to do. It all goes to show the challenges and contradictions involved in being as complex an organisation as the FIA.

    46. Miltiadis (@miltosgreekfan)
      19th July 2017, 20:49

      RIP F1 1950-2017
      I was really happy to be a passionate part of Formula One since i was 6(2003)
      .With the Halo,the safety of the drivers improve,but just a bit,but in “Massa like” accidents,the driver is not fully protected. Cars become ugly,onboard point of view is destroyed,most fans hate it…A black day in F1 history.The sport was going downhill from 2014,2017 was an improvement,but it wont last a lot :/

      1. @miltosgreekfan I guess no longer racing on the proper versions of Spa or Nuerburgring (damn ANSI keyboard) or being replaced with F2 cars in the World Championship or the post-Imola 1994 publicity failed to kill F1, which the Halo has managed to do?

        1. Miltiadis (@miltosgreekfan)
          20th July 2017, 10:55

          @davidnotcoulthard Well,the golden days of Formula 1 were from 1998-2008(TV viewing,attentance etc),so the post Imola publicity didnt kill F1.The sport has been suffering in the past years,TV numbers are falling dramatically,tickets are too expensive & the circuits are not full with fans on racedays,historic venues lose their races…Adding Halo(hated by most fans) will have negative effect & will “kill” the old F1 we knew

    47. I’m more or less 50-50 on this topic: I don’t see a need for any cockpit covering device as F1 is already very safe these days and there haven’t been too many incidents with flying debris etc. That could’ve been prevented with any of the three devices (Halo, shield, and aero screen), but on the other hand, I wouldn’t mind too much as long as lap times or the quality of racing aren’t affected at all by this device.

    48. GtisBetter (@passingisoverrated)
      19th July 2017, 21:14

      Not sure why people bring up Bianchi.This is not designed for that kind of accident. The question should be:” Does it protect against the drain cover that was dislogded at the 2016 monaco GP, or would it have prevented the death of Justin wilson?”

      I’ll admit i don’t know.

      1. If you read the stories that have been out there from people in the know alot more then me or you they say this would not have helped in either of those situations. I wish i had links but this is going back many months so i dont.

    49. I think the introduction of the Halo next year will be as effective and long lasting as when they changed the qualifying system…..and we all remember what happened to that rule change…..
      Wait until viewing figures and attendance plummet…

      1. I hope you are right. I dont wanna see anyone get hurt as much as the next guy but this is just stupid. They wanna bring fans back but they are willing to give the big middle finger to at least 50% of them over and over again. Hell alot of the drivers arnt even on board with this. Its no longer a sport that you feel like you couldnt jump in the car and do it. You arnt scared to do it. This is sorta like if you are a downhill skier and some of the bumps scare you and they make it so you can go around them instead if you are not on the level of the other guys

      2. …..and we all remember what happened to that rule change…..

        @jop452 You do realise that the Q1,2,3 system we have now was the result of that kind of a rule change (though to be fair the same goes for agreggate, elimination, etc qualies)?

        1. If you mean the succession of failed quali changes in the early part of the 2000s, then yes, Q1/2/3 followed those. However, it’s not clear that this is an improvement over a gentle modification of the original system, or indeed any other change that might have followed had the unlikely-ever-to-work single-file qualifying not been implemented (let alone the double-session and aggregate variants)?

          I think, however, @jop452 may have meant the elimination qualifying of 2016. After all, single-lap qualifying in its original form was not a viewer-loser in its initial stages, in the way that elimination qualifying was, and all of the early-2000s qualifying ideas were voted through by unanimous agreement (albeit sometimes requiring large amounts of “persusasion” by Max Mosley), in stark contrast to Halo.

    50. Fred Tissue
      19th July 2017, 21:18

      That’s it, I’m done with F1 now.

    51. Maybe not a popular thing to say but FOM wanna bring fans into the sport and make it better and then they go and do something to pretty much try and kill the sport. Look if the drivers wanna run it let them but if a driver dont wanna run it dont make them. Im telling you the more and more the thrill of the sport is removed the more and more it will not have that spark where people feel they could never do this themselves or have the man hood to do it. That is why people look upto these guys as superhuman heroes (They used to that is) I dont know its not the end of the world but it just takes a little more away from the sport that it is trying its best to claw back the fans it is shedding.

    52. These “F1 is dead” comments are a bit premature. I mean, we have been through the hideousness that were the 2012 Platypus noses and 2014 appendage noses. The halo is nothing compared to that.

      1. It is ten times worse. It does damage to the heritage of the sport, and makes cars look hideous, while not even increasing their performance.

        1. @spafrancorchamps 10 times?

          Even in binary that wouldn’t make any sense, never mind the decimal system.

          1. @davidnotcoulthard that’s poor style of you. Not going to even indulge into this further.

    53. I would prefer two bars either side than a single one. Bars would not obstruct vision as much as you think, I even drive a car with two bars either side every day…. we all do!

      Something like this, that allows the driver to escape out the side if the car finds itself upside down seems to make more sense to me. Bars that come up to the height of the airbox, essentially making the cockpit area somewhat like a buggy. It’s not perfect, but better than the Halo I would argue. Please excuse my very quick mockup!:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7j_XoWgS949aURBTE5uSFRhalU/view?usp=sharing

      1. I’d prefer that …

      2. That’s a perfect design for obscuring corner apexes

        1. It depends where exactly you put the front bars. As I say above, other series race perfectly fine with multiple bars because we have two eyes.

      3. Sorry, but I have to ask, what side will the door be on?
        @john-h :-)

        1. Just two hinges at the front @hohum . The canopy would just open up when the driver gets in and then be closed. Hinge connections are fine, you don’t want to rely on fixed connections anyway to better distribute the load and avoid stress concentrations.

          Getting in would be fine. Getting out in the case of an upside down situation would require a side exit, but no worse than today.

      4. The single front stalk is actually best for visibility, because the drivers have to look into corners etc and at cars around them. Straight ahead is not a direction they really need to see all that much – that is also why antennea etc are placed here, because they hurt vision the least @john-h.

        A design not unlike what you painted was actually tested, but did not hold up well in the impact tests (i think one of the videos from the earlier tests even showed how it bended the bars), they also looked at variants of that – look back to the articles on F1F of some 2 years back, at the time we already had this discussion in depth.

        1. Have any of these two-bar designs really been tested on track, because I cannot remember this being done @bascb? Do you have some details?

          As for impact, this completely depends on the size of the bars and their susceptibility for buckling. This can be reduced by introducing lattice or horiztonal elements, again with some decent thought I’m sure this can be refined… it just hasn’t been thought through yet but I’m willing to stand corrected if you have some details from 2 years back (I also remember debating this extensively). Ta.

          1. If you look back at the videos and studies the FIA published at the time (scan F1F articles for them or just google them), those solutions failed to uphold their purpose in impact tests with wheels being thrown at them @john-h, which makes track testing them pretty much nonsense.

            And in discussions with drivers, it emerged that the relatively thick posts (they would have to be significantly thicker than in your drawing) would actually seriously hamper their visibility as they watch in approximately that area for large amounts of the lap (i think they even gave percentages), it was tested in the simulator I think.

          2. I did find this test of one of the first ideas – a roll hoop/roll cage that the LotusF1 team proposed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgHh4V0WYCs

            1. Thanks @bascb

              The thing is, if the section from the airbox forwards was actually super stiff and thick (essentially, a roof over the driver’s head), cantilevering from the airbox, then the bars would not need to carry so much load… but ok, if the visibility is seriously hampered then maybe its a non-starter.

              But I don’t believe it! Are we saying that buggy racers therefore should not race through lack of visibility? What about touring cars, etc. The driver sits on one side with a bar right in front of them.

              Yep, I remember that test for the roll cage hoop!

              Oh well, Halo 1 here we come.

            2. getting better at the whole photoshop thing. I like the Hulk Red Bull team there @john-h :-)

              Visually it looks striking. But on the one hand it would not offer much protection as soon as something came in more from the side (see a car flying over the top) and It will probably have to be a bit thicker to withstand enough force.
              I guess that they would have tried that one out too, since they tried quite a large array of different configurations.

            3. Indeed that’s the compromise I guess. One extreme is taking the driver out of the car all together, the other is going ‘full webber’ with no helmet! This is my attempt at a compromise I guess. Some protection, Alonso escape possible, but yes not much better in terms of side impact.

      5. Wow, this looks BEAUTIFUL!!

        Now here’s an idea: if the roll cage makes it harder to get out of the car…. MAKE A BLOODY DOOR for the driver to use. Huh? Howsat for an “innovative” idea? A door in a car – who’d’ve thought?

    54. I just can’t understand why the FIA have bought this in, it wouldn’t have stopped the death of bianchi, that was a lateral impact cause, the HANS device that was bought in over 10 years ago made impacts like that hugely more survivable, that device has saved countless lives, Wilsons’ and Surtess’s accidents have been a horrible case of wrong place, wrong time, not a frontal impact into a wall at a 90 degree angle causing massive head trauma and head injuries, that were very common in the CART days of the late 90s and early 2000s leading to the devolpment of the HANS device, the FIA should look at improving them sort of devices and not on freak 100/1 accidents.

    55. I totally disagree with the idea, if you want to be safe stay at home don’t go racing. I’ll quit watching from 2018, what a shame.

      1. @spapastam I mean you didn’t quit around the time people like Stewart went on about safety? Maybe when F1 stopped racing on the Green Hell proper after safety renovations?

    56. These brave athletes taking on these open wheelers have a lot of guts. They are very talented and very aware of the risks involved. If they didn’t wanna be there they wouldn’t.

      I’m personally against it because I see extraction and visibility issues BUT my final say is these drivers are aware of the risks. It should be optional. No one wants to see the driver get hurt at all but if the driver doesn’t want to use it, perhaps because it impares their visibility or whatever it should be up to them to decide if they want to use it.

      Unlike the HANS device, extra high padding, helmets, firesuits and crash structures this is different and in my opinion can be optional simply because it’s right in the driver’s face.

      It should be optional

      1. You can’t make it optional. No one would drive it, because teams don’t want the drag. It will never be a driver decision to go with it or not.

        They should not introduce it at all. Every sport has risks, deal with it. F1 is safe as it is.

    57. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      19th July 2017, 22:01

      There’s only one scenario that I’d be for it. If the FIA sign up Victoria Secret as a sponsor and the models are at the paddock wearing thongs like the Halos throughout the race. In that case, Halo all the way!!!

      1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        19th July 2017, 23:14

        Scratch that – I just looked at the pictures :( Nothing can make up for that…

    58. BREAKING NEWS: The FIA just released a memo stating that as of 2018 there will be a speed limit on each turn of all circuits. They will release those speed limits before the start of the season. If you go over those speed limits you will be parked in fear of scaring someone. They will also be making it mandatory if you want to pass another car you must radio into race control and get it approved and they will inform the car in front to please pull over to let you pass. They say this will revolutionize safety in racing

    59. From 2016

      “It’s a safety thing that we all have to accept.” – Lewis Hamilton

      “The outcome was positive in all the scenarios the FIA went through.” – Sebastian Vettel

      “The decision has to be taken on safety grounds. It shouldn’t be a question for teams. It is a safety issue.” – Jenson Button

      Sure seems like the drivers don’t mind this. And they’re the ones who really matter.

      1. “This is Formula One, right? That means open cockpit. Otherwise we could just as well call it LMP1. It is good as it is” – Max Verstappen

        “It’s a personal thing. I just don’t like it. For me, it should be open. Keep it as we are.” – Nico Hulkenberg

        “It goes in against the DNA of Formula One. It will reduce the chance of being hit by debris, but it is my opinion we have other priorities in improving safety.” Kevin Magnussen

        About 50% of the drivers voted against the halo last year. So stating that the drivers don’t care is simply not true.

    60. Yeezy918 (@offdutyrockstar)
      19th July 2017, 22:06

      F1 2017, the last good looking F1 cars then.

    61. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      19th July 2017, 22:16

      At the end of the day it’s hard to make an argument against any safety device because it’s morally the right thing to do. HoweverI have to admit I was absolutely gutted to hear this will be on the beautiful cars next year. F1 has lost a bit of its soul and a bit of its appeal with this decision. Like the hybrid engines this can only lose fans and not gain them. Okay a lot of fans won’t mind but it certainly isn’t going to win over new ones.

    62. The FIA is afraid of getting sued (again). That’s all there is to it.

      In Bianchi’s case, they were able to put some blame on the driver and claim that it was a freak accident that couldn’t be anticipated. But if someone gets harmed in a similar manner now, the FIA might very well face liability.

      1. @aesto This is exactly it, isn’t it? The FIA were sued, and now to protect themselves from any liability, “something” had to be put on the cars.

    63. The shield is a much better alternative. It would deflect the debris over the drivers head, there is nothing blocking vision, it is easier to exit the cockpit, since it lower at the sides. It looks more esthetically pleasing.
      On the down side, rules would need to be changed, since it would add aerodynamic complications to the car.

      Okay….Shield it is!!

      1. Problem is they tested the shield & driver feedback was far from positive.

        The FIA made it clear that a head protection solution would be on the cars in 2018 & that if no viable alternative was found in time it would be the Halo since it’s been tested & found to not cause additional problems. Yes some drivers & teams voiced opposition to it but as far as i recall none of those that tested it raised concerns about visibility or anything which those that tested other solutions did.

        Whatever solution is introduced needs to be confirmed now to get it in for 2018 so that teams can integrate it into there 2018 designs. It’s about this time of year that next year car designs are finalized & they start to look at manufacturing components so they had to make a decision now.

      2. Unfortunately, the Shield itself turned out to block visibility, to the point where it was unusuable for anything more than an installation lap. Perhaps a later iteration of Shield will work.

    64. After so many years of following the sport I don’t even know what to say anymore. This is just so off-putting for me. The thing is a monstrosity compared to the shield. How on earth can the FIA justify shoving it down our throats when there is so much opposition to it? All hail safety, sure, but not like this.

      We had one year of nice cars. One tiny year. All we needed was no more stubby noses and we would have been in the clear. So sad this.

    65. thepostalserviceisbroke (@thepostalserviceisbroke)
      19th July 2017, 22:41

      I don’t understand this obsession with cost control. Anyone who’s run a business – hell, even balanced a household budget – know you can only cut costs so much. Increased revenue/income is what is needed to level the F1 playing field.

      I know people talk about the NFL model – equal money distribution to all teams. Why not try that? Give all teams an equitable financial footing to start. Then let their performance on the track drive the increased valuation of each team. Why not try real competition and allow each team’s management and exploitation of their FOM funds be the differentiator? If a team can raise additional revenue through sponsorship because they’ve succeeded, then they will have done so on merit.

      1. The “obsession” is because when there are teams spending six times the amount of other teams to do the same basic job, there’s quite a lot of space for cutting costs. However, increasing and equalising revenue is an excellent long-term solution (can’t be done prior to 2020, but very much viable after that).

    66. Pointless and hideous! What does it do to protect a driver from the most common threat of smaller crash debris? Plus, stare at that stupid vertical bar directly in front of the driver.

      IndyCar’s Top Fuel dragster type windshield is the best solution. Time for Alonso to move to IndyCar.

    67. rstghrfsghnjsdgfhndghn
      19th July 2017, 23:39

      Seems awful to say this, but then that’s exactly why we have the halo as of next year.

      A culture of silence, quite understandably, has pervaded F1 surrounding this. It would be socially and morally wrong for the FIA, FOM, and the GPDA to say that in reality, Jules’ died due to simply going too fast. I can’t find the telemetry now, but he continually accelerated around that corner, reaching around 135mph at the apex when he lost control. Yes, the FIA accepted that in their official findings, the drivers know that too, but no one dare speak out and say that driver error/behaviour is the real thing that needs addressing here. And of course they wouldn’t, you don’t speak ill of the dead, etc.

      Instead, something “needs to be done”, or at least the FIA need to show something being done. Hence we now have the halo.

      In reality of course, it wouldn’t have saved Jules, or Senna, prevented Massa’s injuries, and nor does it prevent a similar situation in future. Yet the FIA have now “acted” on driver head protection, once again, and they’re shown to be doing their job.

      I hope we never need to find out, and hope that if we do the halo saves a life. One life saved makes it more than worth it. I just don’t see that it will, and we’re just as likely to get a death regardless in the meantime, due to some sort of freak incident.

      1. Instead, something “needs to be done”, or at least the FIA need to show something being done. Hence we now have the halo.

        In reality of course, it wouldn’t have saved Jules

        TIL that because the Iranis lost the battle of Salamis, Koxinga decided to invade Dutch Taiwan

        1. rstghrfsghnjsdgfhndghn
          21st July 2017, 0:56

          The two are directly related though – this has been pushed, if not rushed, through the system simply because we lost a driver and now “action” must be taken.

          It’s similar to the way speed limits will be lowered on a public road if there’s a fatal accident, even if speed wasn’t a factor.

          1. The FIA have said that it wouldn’t have saved Bianchi.

      2. The FIA has been trying to push this concept through since Massa’s accident in Hungary 2009. (There was a gap of about a year mid-decade, when neither the FIA nor the teams had much idea how to progress on the issue, but some pushing has always been going on in that time). Ironically, it would have probably got a more effective solution sooner had it chosen to make haste a bit more slowly and not spend so much time being seen to take action on safety, as opposed to actually taking action on safety.

        (As for the “Jules’ died due to simply going too fast”, that notion contradicts the telemetry, which showed that nearly every other driver went through that section faster, as well as the eventual settlement with the Bianchis that superseded the official report, which stated that many factors went into that accident, not just one. As such, there’s no single issue for the drivers, or anyone else, to “know” about).

    68. They changed the rules for this year so the cars would look better and more aggressive. I think this decision is a step backward.

    69. Basically..

      FIA call emergency meeting after realising they’ve made F1 cars good looking again.

    70. It’s bad. I hate it. F1 has to be dangerous. Has always been dangerous.
      Halo would not have saved Senna.

    71. I’d like to see how they look incorporated with car livery.

      1. I’d like to see how it looks in the garbage can.

        1. Might be better.

    72. This is my reaction;
      Oh ok.

      Let’s have some great races.

      We are looking at racing sport not a fashion show right?
      Yes they look a bit silly, but really do you really care about that much you really should stop looking.

    73. I’ve given up on this sport.

    74. I think this is a terrible decision for F1 and was hoping when Liberty took over that would pressure the FIA to shelf this idea. They may have, but it obviously didnt work!!! This wont attract new fans and will push away some existing fans- very poor decision!

      Like everyone I dont want to see drivers hurt or killed, but this is the pinicle of motorsport and the drivers know there is risk involved, but I guess we live in a world now where the kids see their heros bubble wraped – hell, I dont even let my kids climb a tree anymore, its too dangerous (well not true, they probabaly climb higher than they should :)

    75. Seems like a bit of a rushed decision for me. Why wait for next year? they mite as well put them on now and ruin F1

    76. The gradual erosion of the degree of risk taken by formula 1 drivers has for me reached a nascent point with the halo. It represents the taking away of a vital element of risk that is in the core DNA of F1.
      That said, I applaud all of the work done to date with regard to safety, but now the Stirling Moss view really kicks in for me. What are we going to end up with here? Cars made of bouncy cotton wool with drivers in inflatable Michelin tyre suits?
      The fact that F1 drivers test their talent up against life changing injury or death is something that I truly admire about them. Anyone can drive fast. All of us who have messed about with computer racing games and 40mph go-karts know that we can go fast (relatively speaking), but to do it at that level and risk absolutely everything is a huge respect factor.
      I honestly think this is being vastly underestimated by the sports owners and governing body. What are we going to end up with here if we carry on with this philosophy? Cars made of bouncy cotton wool with drivers in inflatable Michelin tyre suits so that everything just bounces off everything else?
      Death is a part of life and whilst we have lost many great and inspiring drivers in formula 1, it is a fact that we all move on at some point. The drivers know that they are taking risks. If you remove all the risks, you might just as well turn formula 1 into a world championship of tiddlywinks.

    77. ARM FLOATIES CONFIRMED for wet races.

    78. I really want Alonso to walk around with a sandal to show the media what he thought about the halo requirements for next year. I hope drivers question their safety and stand up and say they will not be racing next year as long as the halo is required because their life is more valuable than racing. The drivers have a diagonal between the top of the air intake above them and the chassis above their steering wheel that they cannot be taller than when inside the car. With the introduction of the halo, that introduces an element of a guaranteed object that is outside of that diagonal. The halo is not a roll cage. It is on a 3 point plane with 3 connecting points. At the speeds and forces of the F1 cars, any rollover or contact with a catch fence, the halo structure would not stand up to excessive forces exerted on it without any further bracing to it. In a rollover like Alonso’s in Melbourne, the ground would cause the structure to depress back into the driver, and they would be struck in the head or the body. It is better to risk the chance of being hit without any protection, than to guarantee there is always an object in front of you that will hit you if it fails. Just my two cents, but the way it is engineered, no amount of testing on the forces it can withstand would make me feel comfortable if I was a driver.

      1. You do know those are all scenarios the FIA can, and did, test the halo, and other systems for, right? The halo works, though it does not help in some cases, it just wasn’t a detriment, and it is ugly. That is why they tried other things.

        Oh, it will not be screwed onto the chassis like the tested devices were (so that it could be tested on existing cars), but integrated into the safety cell.

        1. Rollover definitely got tested, I think to larger energy levels than known to occur in known rollover situations. Catch fencing test? Not sure if it’s happened, but it would be a surprise if a smooth surface was able to get caught on a catch fence, or anything else.

    79. Can’t believe F1 is actually going ahead with this. Ridiculous. Never thought they would. Liberty media should think about ditching the FIA.

      1. It can’t. The FIA have the rights to the championship and Liberty’s media commitment to F1 is subcontracted to it (albeit via a very long lease). Without the FIA, Liberty can’t run F1. For that matter, the FIA’s unusual position in the EU of being a regulated permitted monopoly means that any replacement series Liberty ran could not use any track based in the EU (though Monaco and – from 2019 – Britain would still be possible in Europe).

    80. UGLY……

    81. If Lewis was really thinking of retiring at the end of the year, this might just help him decide!!

    82. Kurt (@dangerpaws)
      20th July 2017, 2:32

      My 2018 TV schedule: More IndyCar, Less F1….

    83. Shark fins rule
      20th July 2017, 2:44

      Kurt, I’m with u, I am finished with F1in 2018 , this is my last year.

    84. In the name of safety, we are going to obstruct the drivers view 100% of the time on the chance there may be an accident that happens .004 of the time. Keep in mind, this is not to reduce accidents, it is to reduce injuries caused by the accidents caused by the obstruction.

    85. Calm down folks. We got used to those horrendous noses. We’ll get used to this. And i bet at least some teams will find a way to make it blend in with the car/livery and look good ;)

    86. The bad thing tho is, it will maybe prevent a Bianchi, but most likely won’t prevent a Massa. And then what.

      1. @shrieker The FIA actually concluded it wouldn’t prevent a Bianchi

    87. This is a tragedy of logical thought. Nobody really wants this.

    88. Was thinking that they needed to announce something so the teams can get on with their chassis designs and manufacture for next year. Maybe they’ll keep developing the shield and introduce it once it meets the requirements fully. For now though its halo since they promised head protection for 2018 and its the only thing ready.

    89. I think improved head protection is critical for driver safety, I don’t think that the halo is the answer, and I am very disappointing that the shield was abandoned after 5 minutes of testing based on the feedback of one single driver.

      I also find it incredibly short sighted to only be testing the halo and the shield on F1 Friday practice seasons, and then deciding to go ahead and implement a “solution” based on limited actual testing. Why not get some mule cars, open wheel cars from the lower series with lower running costs and do thousands of miles of testing on closed circuits of all the different options. Surely that would be a better way to make a rational decision on a way forward?

      1. If Vettel got dizzy after one lap, clearly the shield is not ready for further testing just yet @formulales; and the FIA did test safety issues before the things got into a practice session.

    90. Clickitysplit
      20th July 2017, 5:29

      What looks like a 25mm-wide opaque object placed squarely in the driver`s line of sight will protect him from injury in the crash it causes in the first place.

      Okey-dokey!

    91. The Autosport article says that the FIA pushed the CrapHalo through despite the teams objection on “safety grounds”. So the question is can the teams protest the decision at the World Motorsport Council (or the International sporting tribunal if needs be), claiming that the crap device was introduced on “false safety grounds” on the basis of it creating more problems than it solves?

      What a stupid bullying decision by the idiots at FIA. Is Jean Todt the worst FIA president ever? He’s certainly up there with Balestre

      1. They can, in theory, go to the World Motorsport Council. However, there is no precedent for such a technique working in this case, because the World Motorsport Council is there for breaches of the rules rather than for faulty formation of them.

        The Swiss Court of Arbitration in Lausanne absolutely is an option – but it could take up to 3 years for a decision to come through. By which point I fear backfiring will have forced it off anyway.

    92. Is it ugly? Yeah, it really is. But as some comments above mention, this should not be a surprise: originally it was coming for this year, but with hope of better solutions, they postponed to 2018.
      I am surprised at most of the shocked comments here, frankly.

      Teams need to finish design of the safety cell soon, so a decision couldn’t be avoided.

      And for all those talking about digging in, visibility, or whatever: sorry, most of that was already tested and okay’d last year. And no, it will not easily snap off, that is why they need to know now, so it can be integrated into the safety cell.

      There are indeed scenarios where halo does not help; Bianchi: nothing on the car will; Massa: maybe but as @keithcollantine mentioned: helmet improvements; The FIA concluded halo wasn’t a detriment for a barrel roll but rather a slight improvement.

      At the end it was likely a simple decision: If Vettel couldn’t do more than a lap with the shield, that is just not ready for track testing. The Halo is tested, and they were committed to cockpit protection.

    93. Seems rushed and it is absolutely hideous but any device that can save even one life is worth it.

    94. If we are annoyed by how it looks, just think about how annoyed drivers are with this little strip running in their vision constantly. It probably changes their racing experience a lot just having that item in your vision constantly.

      I honestly feel that of the last 4 serious accidents that have occurred in Formula 1 – Bianchi, Vilota, Spa 2012 and Massa, I think it would have helped in Bianchi’s case and Spa 2012. That’s a 50% effectiveness rate. This solution isn’t perfect either, so I think it’s stupid to introduce it yet. The biggest problem with the halo is that is doesn’t provide protection for flying debris, which is the most common of issues we face.

      This feels like a half job done to meet a deadline. I’m pretty sure the shield would have been more effective if they found the right balance to develop it in further. Either ways, I don’t see the Halo sticking around for more than a season before it gets modified in to something else.

      1. They can still work on the shield etc and introduce it for a future season @todfod. But since no viable alternative was ready by now (clearly the shield solution needs work, since it did not get further than a lap before the driver broke off the test because of its flaws), they had to go on with the Halo as originally planned for this year.

      2. Even the FIA doesn’t think Halo would have helped Bianchi, and it’s hard to say if Spa 2012 would have been helped by Halo as nobody got hit (though it was a very near miss, and close enough that Halo would have changed the position of at least one of the cars). So at most, 25%, and quite possibly 0%.

        That said, I think the FIA has at least half an eye on trying to set an example for other series to follow, at which point there’s a fair few other accidents in which the utility of frontal head protection is rather more obvious.

    95. oh God no, just no…
      on another note, that looks like an old Alonso in that Ferrari

    96. It’s ugly. It’s going to slow drivers down trying to escape from the car. It obstructs already limited vision and it looks like a G-String.

      Maybe if everyone calls it the g-string then they’ll see what a ridiculous idea it is.

      1. Tony Mansell
        20th July 2017, 10:41

        haha nice one.

      2. and it looks like a G-String

        Hahahahah . LMAO

    97. If I hear one more person say that ¨safety is the number 1 priority¨ then my head will implode.

      Safety is not the number one priority, it never is. If safety was the number one priority then there would be no racing because that would be safer wouldn´t it?

      Racing fast cars is the number 1 priority, safety is second or even third if you factor respecting and maintaining heritage into that.

      No!, safety is not the number one priority and nor should it ever be.

    98. Tony Mansell
      20th July 2017, 10:36

      You lost me on halo.

      Coathangers/rails/no noise. Cars meant to look meaner then we get sharkfins. They are as ugly as the 2008 cars now, worse in some ways. The mid 90s were the last time a car looked good. You want to get a younger audience ? Well kids like cool looking cars, not engineers and H&S officers.

      Another own goal in an increasingly frustrating sport.

      1. Yup.

        We’ll lose the fins/coathangers next season, but I was still trying to come to terms with the fact we’ll still probably keep the God-awful thumb noses, now this on top.

        I’m growing tired of having to imagine F1 cars ‘minus _______’ :(

    99. A scenario has been put forward and repeated several times, that being. What if the car turns upside down? The driver can not or may not be able to get out.

      Wehrlein against the wall at Monaco, he could not get out until the car had been put back on all four wheels. I do not see a huge difference with a car being totally upside down, he has an immovable object just centimeters above his head. Be that a concrete crash barrier or the earth. That drive ain’t moving till he gets help.

      Also F1 has some of the best safety people around, I’m of the opinion that all known scenarios have been accessed.

    100. Neither the teams nor the drivers were unanimous as is being reported. 9/10 teams voted against and the drivers voted
      – 7 against
      – 5 pro
      – 4 neutral
      in January.

      1. The FIA is reporting the unanimity from a different vote – the Strategy Group vote 12 months ago that mandated “some form of head protection” for 2018. This was done under huge pressure from the FIA, after it was obvious that the state of the technology then wasn’t compatible with actually protecting anyone – yet. Everyone involved understood that at some point the crossover point would occur and at least one technique would provide that benefit. It is also known that imposing a deadline focuses attention and gets results in many walks of life. So that was the thinking to unanimously vote through “some form of head protection”.

        Note that even the FIA does not claim that the unanimity was specifically for Halo – rather that it thinks that Halo is the best way to meet last year’s established head protection mandate.

    101. Michal (@michal2009b)
      20th July 2017, 11:18

      Halo is a complete disaster. People ruling F1 were pushing was good-looking cars, now they put that awful thing in the cockpit. Regarding safety, it will improve survival by 17% in a case of a very rare accident anyway (Bianchi wouldn’t have been saved by this). It will be a problem when car goes upside, but they concluded that’s a rare danger (as if flying wheels had different frequency…). Of course they reason is not to improve safety but to create an impression of improving safety as they have some law problems following Bianchi accident. That’s the real reason.

      Really hope I won’t see it in 2018. The on-boards would look absolutely horrendous.

    102. @img343
      “Seems rushed and it is absolutely hideous but any device that can save even one life is worth it.”

      @rdotquestionmark)
      “At the end of the day it’s hard to make an argument against any safety device because it’s morally the right thing to do.”

      Well, here’s the thing guys: The cars would be much safer if they didn’t go 300km/h, wouldn’t they?
      What morally right argument would you have against making the cars less fast?
      We can figure out who the best car constructor/driver is if the cars go 160kmh max as well, can’t we?
      Let’s see what they can do with 200bhp, huh?
      It would be sooo much safer, wouldn’t it?

      1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
        20th July 2017, 13:32

        Well I think that’s a straw man argument but yes a valid point that the line has to be drawn somewhere. The truth is this will kill off more fans when numbers have been reducing already. You only have to read forum comments and I’d say for every vote for the halo there are 6 opposed.

    103. Well tickle my balls and call me Sandy!

    104. I think it is good decision. We have had too many close calls and too many head injuries that could have been avoided. But I think aesthetically the halo could have been made to look better. When it comes to safety it has been proven without a doubt that it works great but it is ugly.

      Instead of just being an addon piece on the car it would have been better if fia would have used this situation and tried to improve the driver visibility to the sides of the car. Now that the driver is inside this halo device the sides of the car could have been lowered little bit around the driver’s helmet for example. Or try to update the tech rules about the cockpit dimensions.

    105. So if the torpedo is still in F1 next year he has a go to excuse all ready to go- ‘I couldn’t see him because of the halo’

    106. This thing is stupid. It would not have prevented an injury or death in any F1 accident I have ever seen. It should be optional at drivers descretion. Next year drivers have all the same risks but will look stupid with it.

      1. That would not work. Drivers wouldn’t get discretion over it – their teams (even the one which voted for it) would almost certainly oblige them to run without the extra 6-7 kilos, whether they wanted to or not. Even a ballasting rule would not effectively counterbalance the situation due to Halo’s weight being in a strange place.

    107. The only item shown so far about Halo indicated that the research only involved incidents where there was an actual or very-near-miss accident. This means that many debris-related incidents won’t have been covered, because the ones that would be funnelled into the driver by Halo (especially below-plane ones, meaning most debris-related incidents) were never assessed in the first place. The FIA has also claimed zero bounce-in for debris, which is physically impossible.

      How am I supposed to give the FIA Halo research any credibility when there are such major methodological and physical flaws given in the results it issues? Simply because it is more effective than other heretofore tested options (none of which have been allowed the degree of testing Halo has had, except for the obvious beta Shield) does not mean it is yet as effective as nothing, which makes it an impediment to safety. Note: I’ve yet to see a single person raise a non-safety-related reason to have Halo.

    108. Never in my life this happens.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.