Feedback: your letters

The halo’s incomplete protection against potentially fatal intrusion by smaller objects should not be forgotten or ignored

Halo’s potential weakness

Despite its undoubted benefits (‘How the halo proved itself’, December 6), the halo’s incomplete protection against potentially fatal intrusion by smaller objects should not be forgotten or ignored. It would not have saved Ayrton Senna and may not have prevented

Felipe Massa’s near-disaster.

Charlie Whiting suggests that an aeroscreen “would probably only offer about 10% of the protection that the halo offers” (referring to Charles Leclerc’s Spa crash), but it surely depends on the circumstances? Wouldn’t an amalgamation of an aeroscreen and a halo be worth pursuing? Would it still need a central pillar? Brian Simpson Cardiff

What about the downside?

I think this year has shown both a positive and a negative for the halo. While it did its job in saving Charles Leclerc from serious injury at Spa, the other side of the coin came for Nico Hulkenberg. After his crash in Abu Dhabi (right) his car landed upside down, therefore he couldn’t get out because of the halo, and the car was on fire.

Though the fire was small and quickly dealt with, this could have been a case where the halo was a cause of injury. Kerry Astbury By email The FIA understandably considers the need to escape from a car quickly less of a priority than assessing a driver’s potential injuries, so in the case of the Abu Dhabi crash the policy was executed correctly with the car gently righted before Hulkenberg got out.

The FIA also contends in that situation the halo actually created more space for the driver to escape should he have needed to. It’s also worth noting that the risk of fire is negligible in modern F1. The last serious fire caused by a ruptured fuel tank was Gerhard Berger’s Imola crash in 1989, so the threat posed by that is dramatically less than of the strike to the head the halo can prevent – ed

Time to clip Formula 1’s wings

I have loved and followed Formula 1 since the mid-1960s. I now don’t go out of my way to watch the current races, but still see them. I prefer to watch Motogp on BT Sport and wouldn’t dream of paying to watch F1.

For what is wrong with F1, simply look at pages 42-47 in the Autosport F1 season review issue (December 6).

All those bits of aero parts sticking out is a nonsense. Start by having simple wings front and back and ban all protuberances on the body – a simple and cheap solution.

Chase Carey should take a leaf out of Motogp owner Dorna’s book and dictate to the teams and manufacturers what they should be doing.

If they want to put on a show in which everyone can go back to enjoying the sport we love, don’t be dictated to by the aerodynamicists and designers. Get it sorted or see it go down the pan.

Mr Carey, where do you want me to send the invoice for my advice? John Barker By email