Circling around a dangerous subject
As Formula 1’s launch season gets under way, we’re seeing more of the halo… and asking how far the sport can go to mitigate risk
THE 2018 FORMULA 1 CARS ARE BEGINNING TO break cover now, and for me the only discordant note is that all, of course, are kitted out with the halo: if one more person tells me we’re all going to get used to it in no time, I won’t be responsible for my actions…
Maybe it’s a generation thing. When I first fell in love with racing, such as rollover bars and seat belts, like guardrails and runoff areas, were unknown; the drivers’ lives were seriously at risk every weekend, and they were paid damn all to do it. At school my dad’s weekly letter often contained a newspaper cutting about the death of a driver, and when my childhood hero Jean Behra was killed in 1959, I came face to face with grief for the first time.
Through the 1960s it was the same story. Following the recent loss of Dan Gurney, I looked back to the victory that meant most to him, at Spa in ’67, and noted that eight of the 18 drivers on the grid that day subsequently died in racing accidents. In 1971, my first year in the business, I attended the memorial services for Pedro Rodriguez and Jo Siffert.
Clearly things had to change, and the man who did more than any other to bring it about was Jackie Stewart, who campaigned relentlessly for greater safety, in the process making himself mighty unpopular in some quarters. As Chris Amon said: “Every racing driver of the past 40 years is in Jackie’s debt.”
My point here is that of course safety in motor racing should be a paramount consideration – but not the only one: Formula 1, as Niki Lauda says, has a fundamental DNA that has entranced generations of fans, and if we ignore that we risk losing them. Lauda thinks the halo a step too far.
“You know me. I’m not one of these corporate bullshit guys – this is the way I am. Formula 1 does have a DNA, and part of that has always been ‘open cockpit’. We’re slowly going to destroy it if we keep inventing what are – for me – too many safety issues.
If you go too far with these things, it’s no wonder that fewer people are watching these days.
“Although Formula 1 has never been as safe as it is today, of course I understand if a driver says he is in favour of the halo – these guys love to go to the limit, and they
“If any driver needs no reminder of the perils of racing, it is surely Lauda”
know when they hit something they could get killed, so if you ask them about the halo for sure some will say they want it. No-one, though, asks them about the DNA of Formula 1, and I think – in a very respectful way – that it needs to be maintained.
“In the end the attraction of any sport like Formula 1 or downhill skiing is how far we can go on safety issues without losing the interest of the people. Sure, the racing on its own is interesting, but there is also the aspect of what these guys are really doing – in the end risking their lives – and without that people are going to lose interest. My worry is that we go over the top, and the attraction of Formula 1 slowly disappears.
“I was upset when the FIA came up with this halo thing in the first place. It’s the end of ‘open cockpit’ in Formula 1, and also it’s as ugly as hell, and for the spectators the look of racing cars is important. As well as that, it’s impossible to see the drivers’ helmets, and with the numbers on the cars impossible to see, anyway, you won’t know who’s sitting in the bloody car! It’s another layer between the fans and their heroes, and I think – until we found a proper solution both for the sport and for safety – we should have left it: in the end it’s not only the drivers who are involved with this sport.”
If anyone on Earth needs no reminders about the perils of racing, it is surely Lauda, but a few years ago he made the point that in his day Formula 1 had a ‘gladiatorial’ aspect that has now been greatly dissipated.
“There’s no doubt about it,” Niki said, “and I think for the fans that was a big part of the attraction. My feeling is that if drivers want to do it, fine, but they have to take the decision themselves: ‘Do I want to take the risk or not?’ If someone says he wants to make $40million a year, and no risk… I’m sorry, this is not reality.”
Lauda is not without support in his views. Nigel Mansell recently voiced his dislike of the halo, suggesting that there had to be an element of risk, and that, with the drivers hidden away even more, his fear was that a lot of fans might be turned off. And Martin Brundle told me of a conversation with one current driver, who said it was far from the truth that the majority of his fellows were in favour of it. “What happens now?” Brundle said. “Where do we stop? The only logical conclusion – eventually – is driver-less cars…”
Across the pond Indycar has turned its face against the halo, and is working on an extended windscreen, constructed of materials used in the cockpit protection of F-16 jet fighters. Something similar was tried on
Sebastian Vettel’s Ferrari last year, but he dismissed it after a single lap, saying it made him feel dizzy, and thus the halo got the final green light.
In a recent test at Phoenix, though, Scott Dixon and others were favourably impressed with the Indycar version of the screen, which emphatically has the aesthetic edge on the halo, so maybe Nico Hulkenberg – very much in the ‘anti’ camp – was right when he recently suggested the halo might not be around indefinitely. Light a candle…