I will preface this post with the clearly-stated conclusion that I do not know the answer to the conundrum of F1 safety.
Is it better to have dangerous and entertaining action for people who want to take and watch crazy risks, or should we save their lives and not ever have to look death in the face? If people want to jump off mountains dressed as Superman, trying to fly, should a man with a clipboard be allowed to step forward and say: “Sub-section 34F of the…” and stop us all having fun?
What is liberty? If you suggest it is insane for everyone to own guns, and say there is clear evidence every day that this ruins thousands of lives, you are attacked, left, right and centre because of this thing called “liberty”, which is deemed by some to be more important… and yet at the same time they cry: “motor racing must be safe”.
When I was studying, the writings of Dutch historian Johan Huizinga had a huge effect on the way I viewed human history: “When the world was half a thousand years younger all events had much sharper outlines than now,” he wrote. “The distance between sadness and joy, between good and bad fortune, seemed to be much greater than for us; every experience had that degree of directness and absoluteness which joy and sadness still have in the mind of a child.”
Huizinga was writing in the 1920s, but his words ring true more than ever, nearly a century later. We are cocooned more and more from the harshness of life. Medical science and virtual realities have softened the human mind and we live in a world in which the petty have found power and have created nanny governments with so many rules that you can now read step ladders and microwave ovens; where you cannot do anything or say anything without someone tut-tutting and saying that Eskimos are Inuits or that Ayers Rock must be known as Uluru. One cannot play Cowboys and Indians without upsetting financiers and indigenous folk the world over. You have to use words that committees think are right, not what real people do and say. Society dictates what is acceptable or not and all too often there is no rhyme nor reason to it. Am I a savage if I think open cockpit racing should feature open cockpits? Does it really make a difference if a single seater racing car has an open cockpit or a halo fitted to protect the driver from the roving finger of fate?
Justin Wilson’s death was a clear example of the random nature of fate and it was cruel. But this is “the cruel sport” and there was a time when those who did it, accepted the risks. They were heroes because they wanted to be heroes. They wanted to be the fast boys and if they died doing it, that was that. They accepted it. They were candles blown out too early, yet somehow inspiring for the generations to come.
In many ways, I think this is how it should be. Sport is a lot to do with inspiration, as well as entertainment. People love to compete, or they love to support. It makes them feel a part of something, the member of a tribe. But, at the same time, I believe that life is precious and should not be wasted. Above all, perhaps, I think that life should not be wasted needlessly. Fate is fate and some, like poor Jules Bianchi, are just unlucky. He fell victim to a system that was designed to protect him and deemed to be the best way of doing things. One can find fault in all things after the event.
So should there be halos? It would have probably made no difference in the case of Bianchi but it might have saved Justin, but who knows? How long will it be before we find ourselves mourning someone because fate decrees that a wheel bounces off a halo and goes over a fence?
Or should we just let racers be racers and accept what it says on the tickets: motor racing is dangerous. We must protect those who come to watch. It would be foolish not to do so in the world of the clipboard man, but otherwise should we just let the boys (and hopefully one day girls) get on with it?
joeblogsf1 
I have only ever watched for the skill, there are far too many moments to remember but Schumacher in the wet at Spa going around the outside of people because he had the skill and ability to do it, why would you watch something to see someone die.
Its crazy that motorsport has to be dangerous.
Incidentally not sure if you have seen or remember the stoush that Mark Webbers partner had with an Aussie “Journalist” and sorry for the link too..
http://www.foxsports.com.au/motorsport/formula-one/mark-webbers-parter-ann-neal-slams-herald-sun-writer-for-marco-simoncelli-dan-wheldon-opinion-piece/story-e6frf3zl-1226188765444
Fully agree Joe, the direction in which things are moving now means that even you and me will be able to drive a F1 car on the limit soon.
Not was not the point I was making. Nor do I believe it for one moment. These guys have very special skills and should recognised for it.
Totally agree with your reply Joe, but the OP does bring up an issue for F1, in that regardless of the truth, the perception is that it’s getting easier.
The amount of people who think they could jump into an F1 car and be reasonably quick is quite astonishing. I do a bit of racing myself (karting mainly, nothing major), but it means that I know that I probably couldn’t even keep an F1 car on the road let alone be quick in it.
This is why many people are waking up to MotoGP and Superbikes, because watching that, it’s quite obvious these people are doing something superhuman. Watching a modern F1 car, without a little bit of racing knowledge, it’s not that obvious.
This is down to a number of things – technology obviously, and something that has been irritating me for years – camera angles (they’re dreadful, it could almost be considered a skill to make F1 look slow…), but safety is part of it too.
The drivers are getting buried further and further into the chassis so that you can hardly see them – the cars aren’t moving around as much, but also, you can’t see the driving working either. The halo will probably make this even worse.
And plus, if the sport becomes 100% safe, another aspect of the ‘super human’ perception is gone too.
I’m not saying we need to go back 40 years and have a weekly F1 funeral show, but I agree with what I think your main point it – we need a balance. We need gladiators, and heroics. But like you, and everyone else, I don’t have an answer, but just a feeling that things are shifting too far the other way at the moment…
Joe, there are many who may have the skills etc to be an F1 driver but because of either their choice to do something else, or the hand that life deals them, keeps them from the cockpit.
In that case they do not. Being an F1 driver is about driving fast and making it happen…
Frank, what has increased passive safety of the car to do with driving it in the limit? I’m sure you and I would even have difficulty exiting the pitlane…
OT: Regarding the halo specifically, it is called open wheel racing, not open cockpit, so personally I would not have anything against it if tests show that it would increase driver safety. Aesthetically I have some doubts though remembering the noses of some of the 2014 cars…
Well said and reasoned.
Whilst halo devices are an interesting concept if only for the research behind them I do agree that they seem a step in the wrong direction for open cockpit racing.
Poor Jules would not have been saved by a halo. Neither would Alonso had he been a couple of feet further forward when Grosjean careened across his nose at Spa a few years ago. Nor Senna. Massa’s injuries caused by the flying spring may have been avoided, but that depends very much on the tragectory of said spring. In fact, off the top of my head I can’t think of an incident since 1994 in which a halo would definitely have helped. Perhaps others can correct me. Of course, due to the random nature of chance, an incident could happen at any time. As such it is frowned upon to make decisions purely based on past events but equally, in the pointless quest to eliminate danger at 200mph, it would be all too easy to introduce a system that has next to no impact on risk. By far the best system is not to get in the cockpit at all. Fortunately, there will always be brave souls willing to do that.
Brilliant article Joe and great response Daniel. Skiing, rugby, American football, Moto GP to name a few all have the potential to kill you and the safest solution is not take part but that’s not the point.
Within the bounds of legality as Joe said surely we should be able to do things like skydiving base jumping paragliding (none of which I would ever have the nerve to do) if you are killed doing so and provided it was your choice in the first place then so be it.
There are always has been and always will be danger Michael Schumacher’s accident being a sad case in point and one that many will think about in the context of F1 safety discussions.
I entirely echo Joe’s comments about the nanny society and how it is making us more and more helpless and lacking in self-reliance. God help us if we have some real worldwide issues to deal with one of these days
I prefer open cockpit, but the drivers are so ‘encapsulated’ in there that you don’t see much of them anyway.
Considering the Massa, Surtees, Wilson and Bianchi incidents, they were millions, if not tens of millions to one chances and completely unpredictable.
Whatever you provide, fate will find a way through to kill or injure.
Peter
As usual Joe, your words provide lots of things to think about. One of the reasons I follow your blog is that it stimulates one to think for oneself. In general I tend towards the view you express in the last paragraph. I have been a marshal for over 25 years and fully accept all measures taken to make the spectators as safe as is humanly possible but the situation with marshals, and especially drivers, is very different. The marshals are all volunteers who know the risks and accept them; the drivers are either in the same boat or at F1 level are paid very well to accept those risks.
I don’t think unnecessary risks should be taken but, in deciding on the level of risk that is acceptable, the bias should not be towards “all risk is unacceptable”. The views and outlook of those exposed to the risk should be very influential.
The only entirely risk-free racing would be virtual: inside a computer. Driving a track or even on a road carries some risk, and the question is only one of balance. There was perhaps a time when seat belts would have been viewed as interference from the clipboard-wielding suits, yet we don’t give them a second thought now. I remember elderly relations resenting wearing them in ordinary cars.
I guess what I’m saying is that it’s probably inevitable that there will always be some appreciable risk to drivers in motorsport, but that idea shouldn’t stop us exploring steps towards better safety – especially for track workers and spectators – provided it doesn’t interfere with the fundamental nature of the spectacle.
Hi Joe,
Not suggesting for one minute that we go back to aluminium fuel tanks and lattice chassis but it is interesting to hear the reflections of folk who drive the older f1 days now.
I saw Martin Brundle driving the Yardley BRM on TV the other day, he said they were real heros to drive those cars. As an observation do you think the current order in the F1 generation would be any different if the risk profile was as high as it was in the 60’s and 70’s. Do you think they feel almost invincible in what must be one of the safest forms of high performance motorsport…….
I suspect drivers such as Moss and Stewart in particular had a good understanding of risk and moderated their driving accordingly. If we talk about about a do or die move today you might need to use the run off and use a few places. If it was a do or die move in the 70’s………….
Just a thought.
The whole question, Joe, for me (and I may be naive), is whether F1 should be the ultimate OPEN COCKPIT OPEN WHEEL motor racing series in the world or just the ultimate motor racing series in the world whether open or closed. While I don’t believe the halo concept is the right way forward, there are other closed cockpit ideas out there which would work better.
I believe closed cockpits are inevitable – that does not eliminate the risk of motor racing but it can help save lives. And it also gives us something to answer when our kids would one day grow up and ask why we couldn’t come up with something as basic as closing the cockpit with all the technological advancements we have.
I believe cockpits and wheels would eventually have to be closed as F1 marches on into the next era – they provide aerodynamic advantages as well, and if people want to see drivers in action, cameras within the cockpit could easily make that visible.
I am hesitating, but I think peak performance of technology shall set the pace and “standard” in F1 — and if it claims to be the most uncompromising series, nothing else.
but as peak performance is also about lightness…and not about fuel efficiency, I’d vote for open-wheel, combined with stock-car-like mesh-bar solution
I agree Joe, it is a conundrum. When we look at other sports there are risks, some life threatening, in most of them. A rugby player can be paralyzed or even die. Footballers can be injured for life. The drivers in F1 have very special skills and they should be the ones who drive the issue (sorry no pun intended) forward. The GPDA has always had a close eye on safety. How we feel is not really part of the issue, it is not our life on the line. We may feel that something is taken away, but, really we watch the sport for the racing and also we enjoy the engineering.
Let the drivers decide we have the privilege of watching their skills in action and I for one have enjoyed that for many years and thank them for it.
remarkable comparisons ! So…shall we…stop with this progress-thing ? No evolution anymore ? Blank fatalism towards fatality ?
I think as Sir Stirling Moss has said, danger is a core part of motor racing, it adds to the excitement. Of course drivers need protection and I do not want to see a return to the pre Jackie Stewart days but we do risk making the sport ‘sterile’ if we go too far.
What to me is telling is that the HALO device would not have saved Jules Bianch, was unlikely to but might have saved Justin Wilson and may well be a contributing factor in future accidents because it will restrict vision. Formula 1 is about open wheel, open cockpit racing and is better because of that.
I’ve been watching this latest safety-push, thinking much the same thing. We’ve come so far in safety: from a driver deciding that he needed to start his own team, after finding that half of the lug nuts on his car weren’t even finger tight when he was told that it was good to go, to a driver begging to be allowed to quit a race when his car had lost it’s advantage of superiority owing to a collision. The drivers will be perfectly safe, only when they are removed from the cars entirely. Until watching drones is the new normal, risk is inherently part of the spectacle. No halo or bar would have protected Felipe Massa, and if we need to enclose the cockpits, then it’s only logical to enclose the wheels, and around we go again.
Yes, decades ago, most drivers accepted it (most of them cinfimred so), while some others (JYS, Jack Brabham) also fought for the opposite. Finding a balance is very difficult. In rallying, after the disasters of 1986, in nearly all events there’s been big emphasis and effort in protecting spectators but even with that, some videos show it’s virtually impossible to be completely safe.
I don’t believe in fate. As that movie said “the only fate there is, is the one we make for ourselves”. As long as circuits and organizers properly do their job and spectators act responsibly, fatalities will be low.
It’s not an answer to your questions, I know, but I think there’s no satisfactory answer, bearing in mind all you pointed out.
Here’s how to make it even safer, in fact 100% safe, and the technology exists today. Using remote control technology from military drones and simulator technology from F1, have the drivers drive and race the cars on the track while seated in the comfort and safety of their respective garages. Their proprietary helmets (design) can even be mounted in the cockpit.
I wonder if the interest in the sport would wane?
I’ve always disliked the people I meet who claim to only watch motor racing for the crashes. That said, the danger is part of the appeal, for fan and driver. You can have and appreciate the danger without enjoying the crashes so to speak.
If the car is an open cockpit racer then that’s what it should be and if a driver isn’t willing to take that risk they shouldn’t and don’t have to. This is all free choice.
This relates to the tracks as well. If you make all the tracks with 500m tarmac run off areas the drivers are taking no risks when the are trying to find the limit. On some of these tracks you can run wide and not even lose a place!
I have a feeling this measure is more for the sentimental benefit of bureaucrats who feel uncomfortable with risk and death. If a driver in any formula were ever effected by the danger they would quit and get an office job. Not to mention, as you say Joe – the halo would not likely have saved Jules life.
I see it more as an inevitable response; if fate had looked the other way, Justin Wilson would have carried on and we may not be having this debate.
I am with you Joe. The important thing is to eliminate those risks that are reasonably foreseeable, like submarining under the Techpro barrier last year and cover that risk by standing the barrier in a trench.
We have seen a couple of instances where a colliding car slithers over another. My worry with Halos is that the the leading edge of the floor could get hooked as it passes over, shear the front stay leaving the driver below with a helmet full of Carbon and arrest the errant car so that it is very difficult to extract the driver below. They may be mitigating the risk of one type of accident, but creating another.
But I would definitely not want to see enclosed canopies. The increased side protection seems about right – in my opinion.
Hi Joe,
Sorry but I cannot agree with you on this. Drivers are not heroes because of the risk they take when driving – they are professional sportsmen. They are heroes because of what they achieve at the pinnacle of their chosen sport.
Jackie Stewart is not a hero because he drove at once of the most dangerous times. He is a hero for winning three championships. He is a hero for having the courage to speak about driver safety when it was not considered macho.
Senna was not a hero because he died, he was a hero because he was the fastest of them all. He is a hero because our current day heroes call him a hero.
Häkkinen is a hero not because he almost died and kept racing. He is a hero because he recognised when to stop racing. He is a hero because he was able to step down from the stop when the time was right.
Jim Clark is a hero for successes, not his death.
I could go on but ultimately I am saying these F1 drivers and their hero status is not related to the dangers the endure but the successes they have.
Preventable injuries and deaths should be prevented else why bother with the HANS device, the fireproof suits or tethered wheels? If fate is a fact of life why bother eradicating smallpox?
How can you disagree when I did not reach a conclusion?
The problem is that your post expressed well-grounded ambivalence.
Grokking ambivalence requires that we simultaneously inhabit two conflicting points of view.. This and That. Yin and Yang. Liberty and Equality. Freedom and Fairness. Safety and Risk.
It’s natural that we want lots of both. But it’s one of God’s Little Jokes(tm) that the elements of these pairs exist in natural tension. You can’t have all of one without sacrificing all of the other. So, it’s a matter of balance. And, since we’re mere humans, whatever balance we strike is imperfect.
Plus, any balance between the two things deprives everybody from getting all of either one. Balance means settling for Some-of-This and Some-of-That, which is guaranteed to offend people who want all of either one. It’s also precisely what Civilization is for: arguing about where the balance should be, reaching some accommodation, and abiding by it.
By some mysterious means, your clear articulation of two-things-in-tension is somehow heard by some as a vote for one over the other. I fear something about the internet encourages people to inhabit only one point of view at a time and to demand that everybody take a side.
Either that or people are just stupid. My bride tells me I am sometimes.
Beautifully put!
Is racing open cockpit on a track amongst 20 something similar skilled drivers safer than driving a regular car on a public road amongst cell phone users, drunks, morons etc? I think so. Stay at home clipboard man.
I agree. Far safer on the track than on the road!
Nice piece Joe, very thought provoking. I only hope that the halo design that is agreed on does not create another barrier between the driver and the spectator, thus making them even more anonymous. I remember when Mark Webber took his helmet off on his in lap at his final race, the health & safety brigade went berserk, but what a sight it was to see a real human face behind the wheel.
There is inherent risk in all forms of sport. Should the downhill skier be protected by padded barriers ? Should the scrum be banned from Rugby Union ? Those that participate know the risks. Some need to be protected from themselves largely due to the very competitive nature of modern professional sport but we should never lose the essence of what makes the individual sport what it is. Cockpit canopies in my view cross an invisible line that takes it away from what F1 is all about.
I would have thought the vertical beam on the halo would be a distraction, and could possibly end up causing more accidents.
Every death is tragic but millions die every year from smoking, and governments happily accept the tax revenue from those. I worry Halo like catch fencing may cause more issues than the specific scenario its intended to tackle.
Wholeheartedly agree Joe, yes, sure make the cars safe, but there are limits. We have seen over the years how things can be improved, and we appreciate it, but driving something at 300kmh is dangerous, it can’t help but be dangerous. The guys who do it know that , otherwise they would just be doing it in a simulator. I can’t help but think that the halo concept is taking safety one step too far.
If F1 wants to call itself open cockpit racing, then yes, it should be exactly that. But I wouldn’t shed one tear if open cockpit racing dies out. Hopefully, this will also include open wheel racing. These concepts may have been all the rage 100 years ago, but time has moved on. The crucial point for me is, if today’s engineers were given free reign on this and tried to design the fastest racecar they can, they would neither design it with open wheels nor with open cockpits. So in other words, we’re not allowed to watch the fastest and therefore most sexy racecars possible in F1 just because of some boring tradition.
Well said @Schmorbraten
People should look at the deeper picture. As the Red Bull X1 concept showed, closed cockpit and wheel racing can actually improve aerodynamic efficiency and make the racing faster. F1 should be concerned about being the ultimate form of motor racing, open or closed wheel and cockpit.
And when the safety factor is also there, F1 should resort to closed cockpits ASAP.
sounds wise
nevertheless it’s much about tradition and heritage, too. I say technology shall evolve, whereat the grounds are holy. It’s about a wise balance of tradition and evolution. That’s the winning formula.
You have hit a nerve here Joe! You outlined the grey and safe vanilla of the now acceptable EU way to exist, one cannot call it living. The colour has been drained by bureaucrats (who recently ranted that they must not be called bureaucrats) who aim for the lowest common risk in all possible and impossible imaginings. We do not want safety tied in with political correctness, safety is a matter of risk calculation engineering and mathematics . Whereas political correctness is a disease.
If the Halo is made sufficiently strong to deflect a loose wheel/tyre/suspension arm then what will it hit after it has bounced off? This has already caused a freak accident even before the halo.
In order to preserve the current rules regarding driver extraction, surely the halo must be removable, yet must stay in place during the car rolling.
Major accidents are always the result of an unforeseen event, a component failure a driver error followed by an impact of one thing hitting another. There must be trillions of possibilities which could be calculated, but the only way to eliminate their effect would be to make racing unseeable hidden behind armoured walls enclosed in tunnels while tanks ran inside with their drivers foam filled in place.
I will never understand what’s wrong with (political) correctness. So you mean we shall stop to try to foresee unpleasant events, incidents, accidents?
Agreed. I love your work Joe and it’s my go-to place for F1. But I take issue with your mention of Uluru. This is the name that the people of that land have used for tens of thousands of years, only for it to be (temporarily) supplanted by foreign invaders. It is a simple matter of respect to use the name it has long had. If this is political correctness, then long may it live.
Just a bit off topic alainsbottes, but where did the Aboriginal people originate from? Were they always in Australia, or did they happen to rock up on the shoreline and then start naming areas in their language??
If he had the definitive answer to that, he wouldn’t be wasting his time talking with the likes of us 😉
LoL RShack!
Damian – current belief is that the Aboriginal people originated from the humans that walked out of Africa. They have been described as direct descendants of the migrants who left Africa 75,000 years ago. They split from the Combined Euro/Asian population somewhere between 65,000-75,000 years ago, eventually finding their way to the Pacific and the Antipodes. It would seem they have a far longer history as inhabitants of Australia than any other humans.
My white descendants invaded this country roughly 250 years ago. Aboriginals are believed to have occupied this land for 40,000+ years. Ayers Rock was named in 1873 in honour of the South Australian Chief Secretary Sir Henry Ayers. I’m not sure when the Aborigines named Uluru but it is reasonable that given their extensive history with the land it was possibly/probably(?) a lot earlier than 1873. It could even be possible that it has been named Uluru for longer than the English have been naming things. As they appear to be the original, first, humans to occupy Australia, I, and most Australians, think it is more than fair that we use their name for the rock formation. They didn’t rename anything, they gave the first names, the original names to the places in this country. It is sacred land, to disrespect it simply to try and make some point about nanny states, or political correctness is childish. The English have sacred sites, would it be right for my family to move to London and start renaming your historical and sacred places, and then moan when people ask us to call them by their traditional names?
The funny thing is that the official name since 2002 is Uluru/Ayers Rock. It is not politically incorrect to call it Ayers Rock, nor is it a result of the Nanny State. It comes down to respect, a pretty simple concept, the same basic concept that Joe will use to enforce rules about what can and can’t be published.The difference is that Joe can enforce these rules and stop a comment being published, whereas neither the Aboriginal people, nor the wider Australian population can make Joe, or other people use the name Uluru, or even the name Ayers Rock. In this situation an individual wields far more power than the state, or the people of the state, potentially millions, who may be affected/offended, if they could be bothered being either. If people choose to be provocative simply to be so then no amount of being right or wrong is going to get in their way is it. Either you have respect for your fellow man or you don’t – if you can’t respect his customs and they don’t get in your way but you choose to rail against them anyway…
Also Uluru sounds better than Ayers Rock, I have yet to meet an Australian that calls it Ayers Rock anymore (of course there would be some), not because we are too brow beaten, but because we understand that is a name that predates our arrival, it means something. I don’t expect Brits to get that, but you don’t live here, so quite respectfully your thoughts/approval/whatever doesn’t matter. It is Uluru, it is not “factually” incorrect to call it Ayers Rock, but why would you bother.
No, that is a matter, as I said, of risk factor calculations, engineering and mathematics. If you want to eliminate all risk then you must stop all forms of sport. Remove all forms of transport, forbid horse riding. Prepare your food without any sharp implements without heat, ban all forms of heating use no chemicals. etc etc.
In fact because most accidents happen in peoples homes, maybe you should ban houses as well.
However some of us pre-Blair generations have common sense, common decency, and reasonable manners. We do not need to have these written down, amplified, distorted to the extreme and handed back as laws by the foreign power who now govern us.
I think we’re all aware that there cannot be 100% safety, rpaco. The question is whether we should stop here, and only progress technology in all other areas, or simultaneously.
For many years tracks were revised to slow cars down. But in the last couple of years cars have been slower in their new hybrid format. Now certain parties are trying to make them faster and less efficient ie louder, in their mistaken belief that this will cure the decline in the sport. The reality is that FOM or Bernie has priced it out of the market. Rapidly reducing the viewing figures and hence the value to sponsors. In my view the proposed changes haloes etc will alter the concept of the sport, they may prevent some injuries but may also be the instigator of others, bringing the danger to the crowds rather than the driver. Ok then you need to reinforce all the containment fencing to cope with parts bouncing off cars.
But once you start catering for freak accidents it is difficult to pick a place to stop. Each time there is one, there is a clamour to prevent a recurrence. I never see anything about the actual risk calculation, though it is very probable that such an accident would not occur again in that place for hundreds of years.
One could significantly change the cars and include several airbags, or make the survival cell subject to its own crumple zone or reactive energy absorption, Look at motorcycle inflating jackets! However any one of those devices may well itself cause an injury by some other freak occurrence.
Yes you can continue to develop safety in F1 but is it wise to do so? Can you get the money to do so? Would it be acceptable to drivers? Would it not change the very concept of the sport?
You are right rpaco. I’ve also spent decades watching rallying, and this is still a thrilling sport mainly because one can be inches from the cars on stages. However, the enthusiast uses commonsense when it comes to spectating areas, so as not to endanger themselves, other fans or the drivers/co-drivers, and in my case it works. I always manage to find a great spot that is safe too. I always work out my escape routes when i chose the spot, and never sit on things like log piles….some do…..however if, for example, one sits on a tall rock, then one is generally very safe…..and if one is on a corner, being on the inside is better than being sprayed with gravel on the outside of the corner….it is not rocket science and it is easy to be safe.
Unfortunately, to be safe in F1 these days, one has to carry binoculars so one can see the track and the little cars, or just spend the time with your binos pointed at the big screens!!
Well it was really the spectators that killed Group B. Unfortunately unlike you, they seemed to have no common sense whatsoever in certain countries. Mind you the cars were insane; way way more poke than an F1 car. But rallying is a different mindset. I always recall dear crazy Ari saying “It is making music” and it was for him, well most of the time. I still do not get how you can be reacting to whatever the co-driver shouted three things ago, whilst taking in the next two, its almost inhuman, but fantastic.
That’s not true at all. The accident killed Group B
I loved Rally back these days. I’ve heard the top teams had helicopters in the air throughout stages with spare parts on board. I’ve read it was buried with Toivonen (RIP). Now we have quite standardised tech-rules and a quite frozen running order. In order to keep these ultimate pinnacle sports alive, I would try to get all safety measures implemented I possibly could get my hands on. (Sorry)
Let Racers Race.🏁🚥
Let Bikers Ride.🏁🚵🚴🚥
Let the Health and Safety Executives eat metal.🚑🚒🚔🚎
If it wasn’t for the risk factor where would the spectacle be? A dull pastiche of drones following one another in Google cars.
Back in the early eighties, when the BBC started showing a lot of the races live, I remember feeling a surge of excitement just before the start of a Grand Prix, mainly because of the danger involved. I knew that it was the most dangerous part of the race and that various drivers had been badly injured or worse in the first few hundred metres. These days I rarely feel the same. Perhaps the prospect of a major first-lap carambolage at Eau Rouge or the tunnel at Monaco will give me some trepidation, but when a few laps are done then I watch as I would a perfectly safe sport. I’m honestly glad that it is safer now, but sometimes I miss the thrill.
Indeed, we all listened to hear if anyone went flat through Eau Rouge. It was very dangerous back then, but for many drivers that was the reason they did it.
I don’t think danger was why they did it… I think they did it because it was a challenge, a way to test themselves, to see how good they were…
Danger upped the ante… but it wasn’t the reason for the game…
Well maybe, but Stirling Moss certainly did it for the danger, he has said so many times. Maybe I should have said thrill or excitement, but that came from the danger. There must be a a thrill from getting it right, I spent far too much money at Brands Hatch and only got the feeling once in many hundreds of laps. Funnily enough I am just reading Blink by Malcom Gladwell and realised that I had thin sliced that bend before I even braked and knew it was right, that one bend was in the zone. Unfortunately it never happened again and I stuck on 1:04 (first 4 gears only 5th not allowed in school XR3i)
So if you could get that feeling all the time that would be worth the risk.
I think best action racing would be seen if there was no (quite obvious) threat of being paralysed or even death.
Halos should only be required in an F1 theme park where members of the general public drive round a high-speed circuit at velocities of their choosing.
As for the professionals –
What is the current drivers’ consensus?.
There is no conundrum.
Every human activity carries with it some degree of risk. For example, people regularly choke to death when eating, yet we continue to fearlessly indulge ourselves in this activity.
Our body is quite delicate. If it’s stressed beyond certain known parameters, life ceases.
If you choose to place your body in a situation where the potential (however small) of it being stressed beyond those parameters exists, you accept the possibility of injury or death.
In the case of motor racing this applies equally to participants or spectators. The risks to each group are quantified statistically if you care to search for them.
Using a ‘halo’ device may – as you point out – reduce the risks to one group while increasing the risks to another. I think it’s called ‘The Law Of Unintended Consequences’.
All life carries risk. The risks we choose to take are down to the individual. And that’s as it should be. Just don’t whine when it goes wrong. You were never going to live forever.
I suppose we are lucky that, so far anyway, it has not been decreed that each car must carry “danger” signs with two red lanterns on front and an amber rotating light on top. The drivers all to wear identical high-vis jackets and safety boots with steel toecaps. In fact the dress code could be extended to all on the grid and begin to look like a council workforce two days away from digging up the track.
Each car to be preceded by a man on foot carrying a red flag?
That’s the spirit!
It’s a tough one alright. I think we need to try what we can to make things safer. Forcing drivers to wear HANS devices is a good thing. The increased cockpit sides are a good thing.
But with all that I just don’t like the idea of the halo. It feels churlish to say it, but the concept drawings are just too damn ugly. It feels like a solution looking for a problem. It wouldn’t have prevented Massa’s injuries. I’m not convinced it would have prevented Henry Surtees’ either.
I agree ! WHEN you invent a solution (that late), it ought to having prevented — basically all of the head-related accidents of the past. That’s why you should not wait long after an incident to come up with a solution. Halo is far too imperfect.
I agree Joe. Formula One is (and always should be) an open cockpit formula. What’s the difference between this additional head protection and the safer modern Tilke circuit designs compared to the more old school circuits (where it might hurt if you have an off?)
I suppose my point is – where does all this end? Racing simulators?
even at a modern track, a car may easily flip upside down and land on a barrier or another car. It may easily happen that a car takes off and flies right into the helmet of another driver. See Mr. Coulthard passing by Mr. Wurz’ visor in AUS 2006 or the Grosjean-Alonso incident. I have proposed something different and nicer than halo and with both solutions I would speak of open cockpit racing. But a jet canopy would look cool, too. To me, F1 is about lightness / peak performance; and WEC about stability.
Cracking good article. The VSC is a tremendous innovation for safety, because it takes into account some of the root causes of Bianchi’s accident and solves them in a way that’s fair to the competitiveness of racers, and almost certain not to have negative unintended consequences. The same can’t be said for halos or canopies, which in my opinion are almost certain to lead to more deaths, since the odds are much higher that debris will be shot into the grandstands and hit someone, than that one will strike directly on the infinitely smaller target that is the helmet of one of the drivers. While both spectators and drivers are accepting a risk, surely still the drivers expect and should be expected to assume the greater risk.
when they invented seat belts there was the possible consequence of not getting drivers quick enough out of the car. When joining such a project you have to accept that there won’t be perfect safety. But you will want it as perfect as possible. This is only given if safety evolves, alongside all other areas of technology.
It seems acceptable to nanny states the world over to send young folk into harms way when there is oil/money/power/influence at stake and the collateral damage is just that. But when people want to push themselves to the limit to achieve greatness they must wrap themselves in cotton wool. Danger is exciting but people don’t go to a circuit to run with the bulls. Drivers know the risks and take them willingly as they should but a spectators life should never be in danger.
there is no point risking any person paralysed when you realise how to reduce the risk by about 50% (which could easily be achieved by adding ANY additional head protection. There is just no point.
Who was the last driver that could’ve avoided becoming paralysed by additional head protection? IIRC, Streiff was in ’89, and I’m not sure today’s proposal of head protection could’ve prevented it. This extra head protection is a solution waiting for a problem.
The great thing with open top racing is that the driver is visible, he becomes a part of the entertainment aspect as we, the audience, can see him and the efforts he is putting in to achieve results. By contrast sports car racing (as much as I love it) is to a grater extent about the car alone.
In a sport that has lost its way regarding promotion in a VERY big way, this could be another false move.
he can remain visible. but what’s the point in risking, with one’s eyes open, paralysed men ? It’s so easy that a car flips upside down, landing on a barrier or another car. It’s so easy that a car takes off and flies into the helmet of another driver. It’s just far too obvious ultimate fatal risk. We want safe planes, ships, lifts and cars, that’s it. In safer cars, drivers would push and risk more 😉
Agreed Joe: Surely we reach a point where the “Nanny State” has to let go of the strings? I’ve been going to GP races since the early ’70’s; loving the sound of a Ferrari V12 at full tilt in the distance – while plodding along in my Hillman Imp (actually a Singer Chamois – but I digress!) I was there at Silverstone when Jody caused havoc at the first full tilt run at Woodcote. loved the fact that I was able to help because I had an armband declaring me as “Official” – truth was, I just had a mate who worked for AP Racing, all we’d done was copy his paper armband (complete with ink running when it got wet). It didn’t matter; we were involved!! I doubt a young man now would ever get close.
Later in life I was fortunate to work with an IndyLights team in the States. The access allowed (even perhaps expected?) at Mid-Ohio was enormous, but respected within the team – they all ‘got it’ — the fans are what drives the team, without them we don’t get the $$ to go racing.
I’m not suggesting racing should be dangerous but let’s face it we all want to see young lions released into the arena (and secretly think .. I could do that! -ever tried it? answer: No, you cannot – these people are special.)
completely agree.., I think there has to be a an agreed level or safety but also why not an agreed level of risk. Any new solution could cause more problems than it solves, and from what I’ve seen would only provide safety in a certain set of circumstances…unfortunately fate does not work that way.
It would be interesting to look at deaths per miles in two different series, open and closed, eg F1 and Le Mans, thought would be difficult to get a like for like comparison – I’m not sure there are any less deaths or injuries.
and who agrees on which level and how ? There is only one way: progress, evolution
In a way I am surprised that anyone who has made a career through karting and various open race cars “suddenly” seem to make a fuzz about open F1 cockpits. Some karts, which have far less protection than F1 cars, go as fast around tracks as MotoGP bikes. Talking about bikes…. how do you protect a MotoGP rider from death and injury (or just any bike racer out there). Simoncelli died in a freak accident, Tomizawa died after a crash and being ran over by other racers, one of whom has just recovered from a nasty head injury after he crashed himself. Last year Andrea Iannone collided with a bird, someone has ran into a dog once…. All other racers get on their bikes again after such incidents.
What is next? Build a complete cockpit around karts? Ban bike racing? Maybe people who choose to become x-sport participants should be banned from back and front flipping? I guess talking about the Northwest 200 and Isle of Man kind of races is completely out of the question. All these people choose to be there and accept the risks.
Why is an open cockpit such a problem? You can always make a career move to LMP1 cars if you want to sit in a safe place. All drivers who race now must have seen what happened to Senna, what happened to Roger Williamson, Stefan Bellof (closed cockpit). Yes the cars were improved after those incidents, but yet all the racers who race now choose their career path knowing these dangers that they saw in their youth.
IMHO there is not much wrong with a halo, altough it looks stupid, ugly and unnatural after 100 years of open cockpit racing. If people are so worried just ban open cockpits and race with the LMP1 style cockpits. Those seemed to work very well in incidents with Loic Duval, Allan McNish, Marc Gene and Anthony Davidson where they crashed at very high speeds at Le Mans. And the cars till look good.
A halo is not going to stop a spring, not going to prevent a freak accident with a Grosjean Spa like car flying with the nose to a sideways car….? And what will they do when a halo helps to launch a car higher in the air and it will land somewhere. The thing is designed to prevent freak incidents so it is ok to discuss freak results too.
Every life, every day, is at risk. Jenson Buttons wife once said that she felt much more at ease him driving an F1 car than driving out on the road in an ordinary car and felt he was safer when racing. When I cross the road, I’m at risk. I just mitigate for it by looking both ways continually and listening. I can’t however mitigate for the idiots out on the road and how they may put my life at risk, and in much the same way, you can’t mitigate for each and every possible eventuality, just the ones that are likely to cause the most danger. I think F1 should do as much as it can to ensure safety as much as is reasonably foreseeable, in the way that they have done since the death of Ayrton Senna, but there must come a point where you just cannot mitigate for every eventuality. I don’t know where that point comes and can’t give a definite answer.
As we will never know when it was wise to stop, we have to go on. Safe cars will produce more on-track action, definitely.
The problem is, it wouldn’t have saved Justin, would it? Because it’s not being proposed for Indycars.
I’m of the opinion that Motor Racing will never be entirely safe, and if people try too hard to make it completely safe, the essence of the sport will be lost. Maybe we’ll eventually end up with the drivers stood on the sidelines, ‘driving’ the cars by remote control…
As it says on every race ticket: ‘Motor Racing is dangerous’. If the drivers themselves can’t accept this, then maybe they should go off and be an office worker or something.
It is not about “entirely safe”. If they would have waited for that, there were no safety belts etc. All technology has to evolve, that’s it.
I have to admit that great part of the fascination I feel for MotoGP lies in the obvious presence of danger and how the drivers dare to ride sometimes so close to each other that you’d think it is a contest of ignoring fear. And the drivers talk about having fear and adrenaline when racing. They do what they love and I enjoy watching it. And they want me to watch. I can’t see anything wrong with it.
And of course I still was utterly shocked by the death of Simoncelli when I saw it live on TV and I don’t want the drivers to get badly injured. Besides I don’t think that people like Troy Bayliss who decided to amputate part of his pinky to get back on the bike sooner need to be looked after by others…
I hope we don’t need another Michael Schumacher to teach us that despite our personal perception of everyday life, professional racing might be far less dangerous in comparison than what we like to think.
I think it’s good to develop new safety features. “The real world” may benefit from them, and isn’t relevance an important part of the F1-mission?
I think it’s good to go out of your way to try and save drivers’ lives. Racing at 300km+ will never be safe. But if cockpit protection could’ve saved Wilson, Senna, Surtees Jr, etc, then I’m all for it.
On a lighter note: F1 should have yet another all-talk group, e.g an aesthetics commitee. The mock-up of the halo looks ridiculous. I’d like jet fighter cockpits or even the dragster style rollover bars, but this monstrosity…
I doubt this would have saved Senna
This is interesting. I’m not an engineer, a medical professional or a racing driver. I am an F1 fan and (I hope) a rationally thinking person. You are suggesting that the currently-proposed halo protection likely wouldn’t have saved Senna, and previously wrote that it wouldn’t have saved Bianchi. My understanding of Ratzenburger’s fatal crash is that it wouldn’t have saved him either (although a HANS device might have helped). So in F1 there’s been 3 deaths in the past 30 odd years, and this proposal wouldn’t have made any difference. So why are they proposing it again?
It’s about the strive. In the top leagues of motor sports, technology shall progress, imo. Suppressing the field of safety would be inconsequent. We would see more spectacular accidents if drivers were quite save.
The jet fighter cockpit may have. But obviously it’s all just maybe and what if…
Great article. Tough questions. I understand there can be no return to the spectacle (and the dangers) of the 60s, 70s or 80s– and I don’t want there to be. Nevertheless, one of the results of all the change (much of it for the better) is this: the drivers of those past eras were heroes in a way that today’s drivers never can be– not because they are lesser drivers, but because they are not on the edge in the same way. The heroes of those days gone by could be compared to spitfire pilots, Apollo astronauts, or Victorian polar explorers, reaching for the edge of what was possible, knowing what it might cost, and reckoning it was still worth the risk. I still love F1– I don’t want anyone to die doing it– but I can’t deny that it is also relatively sanitised. Very difficult, as you say.
For what it’s worth, I don’t like halos.
In my opinion the drivers are still Heroes and F1 is still and always will be dangerous. It’s great that cars have evolved to be safer but in my opinion it would not be good if they were so fast and so safe that you could no longer really take in what is happening (in car footage at Montreal or Monaco for example is already bewilderingly quick).
I am also not sure it would be good for safety if the driver felt virtually invulnerable – for example the Tilke runoffs are good but arguably encourage dafter driving relative to Suzuka
And I don’t like the look of Halos either!
Joe, I know you don’t always want links, but this one says it all for me.
Please post it.
Thanks for that Robert – very poignant.
Having started watching F1 in the 60’s, I happy to see the safety advancements. I lost too many of my heros in those days. Having said that, the current level is the opposite extreme. F1 with enclosed cockpits is not F1. What’s next, enclosed wheels?
The horse has bolted, runoff areas are too large with no handicap for going over .
The protection of the driver is so great that limit can be achieved by a GP2 driver on most laps with no thought of life preservation, we need to challenge the driver more with the risk of pain or lap time if overstepping natural talent to have a greater unique difference that can be seen by the natural eye .
More protection is not the answer.
Justin Wilson accepted the risks. It has been widely reported that, when he was at a track he thought safe, he would leave his hotel room in a mess. At a track he thought unsafe, he would pack his suitcase so his stuff could be collected easily by whomever. But there’s no need to allow lives to be wasted. If they can be saved by reasonable steps, then they should. Having people die on live TV is not acceptable and, of course, it’s the only time a lot of media really take note of motor racing.
On the other hand, there should be consequences for mistakes and overstepping the mark. For example, having the limits of the track marked by paint and drivers being able to go way off the track without losing hardly any time is wrong, in my view, and takes safety too far.
It’s difficult balance to get right.
Better you don’t watch the IOM TT or the NW200 then!
EXACTLY !
I don’t think there’s an answer here anyway. What I do think is that the culture of safety we have around us is to an extent an illusion. Life is not safe and far less under our control than we (mainly in the west) believe. Europe is now facing some of the consequences of the dangerous world that lies just beyond its borders in the Middle East. Trying to banish all and every risk from controlled endeavours like motor racing – however much it seems to be (and maybe is) right – only serves to further that illusion.
However tragic (in, as you pointed out, the original sense of the word) the deaths of anyone involved in motor racing is, it does mirror the “real” world where people die needlessly as well. I think part of the reason all animals enjoy playing (which is what sport is) is that it prepares them for real life. It can show you Huizinga’s sharper outlines and allow you to go through the emotions associated with them in relative (personal) safety to prepare you for when the inevitable happens to someone close. The pursuit of absolute safety runs counter to that, the only question (to which as I stated above, I don’t think there is a definite answer) is where to draw the line.
You’ve nailed it: statistically the most dangerous place to be at a motor race is in the crowd. Marshalling is also a fairly risky business. The chaps in the cars do in the majority of cases have some say in the matter – something which bystanders seldom if ever do.
All that this rule does is pass the jeopardy down the line from the drivers to somewhere else and, in all likelihood, someone else. You cannot mitigate for fast-moving debris, particularly something as heavy as a wheel, bouncing off a curved structure.
Sir Stirling has it right: winning a Grand Prix which could potentially kill you compared to winning a Grand Prix in which you are hermetically sealed from risk is like the difference between pulling a gorgeous bit of crumpet or paying for a hooker. The same end result but one is infinitely more satisfying.
Hi Joe, Spot on as always.
I notice the decision to end open cockpit racing was announced on the same day as the that the British army banned its drill instructors from swearing at recruits, in case it upsets them.
I don’t think this is unrelated.
My grandfather was a lifelong motorsport fan and a paratroop sergeant. Sad to say, but I’m glad he isn’t around to see how emasculated we’ve become.
I certainly appreciate Huizinga but I’m afraid I don’t agree with your middle paragraph as it struck me as an all too familiar and tiresome “anti-PC brigade” rant. I simply don’t see it.
I’m perfectly free to cut off my own arm with an angle grinder in my garage if I want to, but employers should absolutely be responsible for ensuring the safety of a worker operating similar machinery. Nothing strikes me as being wrong about this. As for the argument about language, it strikes me as being very generational. I see no problem in calling peoples by the names they want to be called by.
To extend that argument to a semantic one about a form of racing being called “open cockpit” racing – so it should always be thus is a complete non-sequitur. If the equipment changes, then the language that describes it will change.
As for the assessment of risk in F1 – it strikes me that it should be entirely in the hands of the driver’s association. They are the ones with an investment in it, after all.
I agree. Nanny state over-regulation cannot be confused with culturally sensitive terminology.
If one person is killed by a shark, and the government overreacts by shutting down all beaches forever, that is over-regulation. Nevermind the fact that only 5 people, worldwide, are killed by sharks every year, out of the many millions who visit beaches around the world. We must have a knee-jerk reaction to the one shark death that just happened, therefore we shall disallow family beach picnics, making sandcastles, looking at shells, etc. While we are at it, and since somebody once tripped on a tree root and fell over, everybody is required to stay at home and indoors at all times.
I’ll admit, I’m the one who called Joe out on the Eskimo comment. While it’s not as high profile, it’s no different than using the N word. ‘Eskimo’ originated as the term that lower-latitude First-Nations used to refer to the Inuit people. It’s a derogatory term that literally translates to raw-meat-eater. This term was adopted by the Europeans and was used for several hundred years. The people themselves have asked to be referred to as Inuit, which is from their own language. I have no problem calling a racial or cultural group of people what they ask to be called, and refraining from calling them what they ask not to be called. And I don’t equate that to closing-beaches-for-fear-of-miniscule-chance-of-shark-attack.
How does this all relate to F1 and halo cockpits? I’m not sure. Joe has discussed nanny state in context of making F1 safer. There’s certainly overlap. I think there will always be drivers willing to take risks, no matter how safe or how dangerous it is. So to look at the issue without emotion, it becomes more of a debate for the fans. Are fans looking for danger, with the risk of injury or death? Or are they looking for pure safety, with the sport being all about talent? Do longer runoffs make for better or worse racing? And I don’t just mean for the existing drivers. New drivers coming into motorsports will evolve their driving styles differently if there isn’t always a wall defining the outside edge of the corner.
Personally, I think the halo idea needs some more thinking. There’s something about the closeups of drivers eyes when they are mentally preparing for the start of a race, seen in grid while their visors are still up. It’s the last part of the driver that is actually visible and ‘accessible’ by the camera. I think the sport will lose a small piece of ‘hero access’ if that is obstructed in any way.
What’s this, Steve Kibble: “it’s no different than using the N word”? You might be guilty of grossly inflating your own argument. Your claimed translation of Eskimo as “a derogatory term that literally translates to raw-meat-eater” would appear to be as out of favour as you reckon Eskimo to be…
This from University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska Native Language Center, published 2011:
http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit-eskimo/
Nice thoughts. I think that what drew people to motor racing, both competitors and spectators, was the fact that it is gladiatorial, determined men taking mechanical monsters to the limits to win glory and reknown by cheating the ultimate leveller, death. Once, that was what heroism was. It was crazy, it was primitive, but very human. Nobody wanted to watch a bunch of spoilt rich brats trying to be the first to cross a finish line, they wanted to see bravery, to see men who were willing to risk the ultimate sacrifice in order to be first across the line, knights dueling fairly, on the edge of the abyss, with the real prize being the adulation of the spectators, because greatness is awarded by our peers for heroism, not for merely collecting statistics. Nuvolari, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Lauda, Villeneuve and Senna were heros for daring death, not for driving around in circles.
Those were the values of the past. Today western civilisation has other values, and as a result real heroism is out of fashion. So motorsport has a problem, because it is trying to do 2 opposing things: remove all danger but still move us by preserving the image of heroism. I think Nuvolari, Moss and friends would say their lives were theirs to risk. safety is good up to a point, but there is nothing interesting about cotton-wool wrapped millionaires driving in circles. If there are men and women who want to be gladiators, why deny them the right? Why should the nanny brigade immasculate everything?
I completely agree Joe. As I posted in the other thread open cockpit racing isn’t open cockpit racing if you close the cockpit. The Halo would not have saved Jules, Massa or Senna. It might have saved Justin & Henry. You could make racing motorbikes ‘safer’ by enclosing the riders and adding 2 more wheels, but then it wouldn’t be bike racing.
It probably won’t affect the racing (except to make young racers even less aware of the inherent danger of racing) and won’t affect the performance of the cars.I do think the cars will look stupid though and that is a big turn off. Call us shallow but the ‘looks’ of the cars is probably one of the key draws to the sport, it certainly was for me at a very young age.
A difficult subject to address really as I agree with your point of view but would also like to avoid that empty feeling when someone dies doing the sport I love.
The loss I felt when I was young when my hero Ronnie Peterson died kept me away from the sport for the next 10 years and I for one never want to return to the fatality levels of that era or before. However the sport has to have some intrinsic danger with the speed and dualing we all desire so fatalities need to be minimised but can never really be removed.
Personally I suspect the proposed cockpit protection solutions will get overruled for restricting visibility and access to the driver if a serious accident occurs.
For me, it comes down to something like this. It’ll be very easy for people to be offended by the below, but I truly believe this is what we’re implicitly talking about.
Within each person’s head, there’s a set number of people we’re comfortable to watch die every year.
In the early days of F1, this number was a high number for some people, and a low number for others (I’m thinking Jackie Stewart for example).
Now, for most people that number is zero, for others it is slightly (but certainly) above zero.
Ultimately, by accepting risk in motorsport, you’re also accepting that people will die – you cannot have one without the other (otherwise what’s the risk?)
Thinking about it like this makes my head hurt – in what world would I want to see someone die?! That’s as far as I got… I don’t think there is an answer, other than to let adults do what they want to do, in a fully informed fashion.
Thank you Joe – we’re of like mind on this subject.
Joe, do you know what stage the halo idea is at? All that seems to have been published are rendered CAD images to show ‘what the concept might look like’ but I haven’t seen anything mentioning an actual halo (or dummy model) being attached to a car which is then driven for a few laps.
It is easy to produce very fancy images of things which look like the way to go (thinking particularly of the Red Bull and Ferrari ‘F1 concepts’ which were published last year but were nothing more than pictures) but making an actual part and sticking it onto a car and seeing whether for example you can actually see where you are going is a different thing.
I have a feeling drivers would be less enthusiastic about the halo concept if they had driven a car with one on. I’m all for increased driver head protection but surely there must be other concepts out there, we seem to have jumped onto the halo concept as ‘the solution’ a bit quickly …
It is apparently agreed…
(Flaky internet connection, please forgive any redundant posts)
The more drivers cost, the more they will be protected. Back when top drivers were cheap, you could bury a couple per month and just move along. But when they’re worth $millions, the story changes.
The same thing happened in baseball. The players used to police Proper Behavior all by themselves, no formal rules required. If a ballplayer showed bad manners on the field, upon his next at bat the opposing pitcher would try to stick a fastball in his ear. Everybody knew what it was about, and everybody accepted it. It was dangerous as hell, but at least the players were well-behaved while playing the game. The unwritten rules were followed. But now that they’re all zillionaires, that’s no longer permitted. If they police themselves now, there’s ejections and fines and all manner of upset. So, the players are safer… but they’ve forgotten their manners.
My own thoughts are that, if people want to have lethal risk in F1, we should try ensure that any risks the drivers face are within their control, and down to their own skill, judgement.
But I think we should encourage attempts like this to avoid random injuries that are not linked to their skill, like Henry Surtees.
It’s not an easy balance, but it can at least be the goal.
well put !
I’ve just finished reading up on Rio Haryanto’s career thus far and I was interested to note that since moving into car racing, he’s already entered 189 car races (source Wikipedia), without including the number of times he tested, practiced, qualified etc. A driver such as Lewis Hamilton who had a quicker progression to F1 still raced in 117 car races (source Wikipedia) before making his F1 debut (and again would have driven at many more test days, practice sessions, qualifying races/sessions). My point is, young drivers will be expected to race open cockpit cars; Formula Ford, F3, GP3, GP2 etc without the halo or whatever is going to be adopted. By the time a driver reaches F1 they might have raced in 100+ races, usually with larger grids, generally lower safety standards and against drivers of vastly differing abilities. In other words, where the races have greatly higher margins for danger. Therefore I question how necessary the adoption of halo is when drivers are racing in arguably the safest environment of their careers.
If any racing series needed to consider some kind of cockpit protection, I think it’s more likely Indy Car for oval races. The Wilson accident was a long time coming and in all likelihood will occur again. I’m not saying a similar accident can’t or won’t occur in F1, after all Massa was very nearly killed by flying debris, but when the odds are in the drivers favour and when the proposed solution appears to be ill-conceived rather than a pragmatic approach to a ground up rethink on safety (I still think the fighter jet solution was feasible if there was a will for chassis design to be altered), I think the answer to “should the halo be adopted” is no. But then I’m sat in my office chair, not a cockpit.
Of course I never want to see a driver injured or killed, but up to Japan 2014 the sport was doing very well, perhaps lucky, but at some point the template needs to be defined for what F1 is and will be. Should an airborne accident occur might the next step be for closed wheels?
Great writing Joe, thought provoking as usual.
“Therefore I question how necessary the adoption of halo is when drivers are racing in arguably the safest environment of their careers.”
Good point, well made.
Joe – you are right, it’s a seriously tough call.
Ultimately, it’s a question of someone’s life, which is impossible to put a price on, whether that be in terms of personal enjoyment, sporting achievement, authenticity, heroism, or whatever measure one chooses.
My personal feeling is that perhaps the Halo isn’t the right move, or at least isn’t “necessary” at this time.
It feels to me as though, given the current level of danger in F1 – where we’ve experienced 1 driver fatality in nearly 22 years – that the Halo is a solution that encroaches too much on the essence of open-cockpit racing, without enough evidence that it could have saved the life of Jules Bianchi, or even prevented the serious injury to Felipe Massa in Hungary ’09.
There’s no doubt that the Halo COULD help in future but in F1, how often do we see accidents where it WOULD have saved a life or prevented serious injury? Well, I’ve been watching for 26 years and I can’t think of one, so probably very, very rarely. Does that make it over the top or unnecessary? Perhaps.
But there have certainly been some near misses, where a few inches the wrong way and the driver would definitely have benefited from a Halo. Romain Grosjean launching over Fernando Alonso at Spa 2012 springs to mind, or more recently, Fernando landing atop of Kimi in Austria.
I suppose the argument boils down to 2 things; what is an acceptable level of risk and will the Halo deliver enough benefit to outweigh the ‘cost’? Both are horribly subjective.
Is a fatality in a generation an acceptable level of risk? My view is: probably. If that sounds cold then it’s not intended to. When you compare that level of risk to other adventure or extreme sports, I believe F1 comes out unbelievably favourably, especially given that the speeds are truly extreme; way in excess of most things people can feasibly get up to, no matter how crazy they’re feeling.
Will the Halo deliver enough benefit to outweigh the ‘cost’? It depends on what you view as the cost… Remaining authentic to open-cockpit racing? Preserving the aesthetics of an F1 car? I’m certain they aren’t worth someone’s life but that’s the kicker, looking back at the last 22 years, the Halo wouldn’t have saved one.
No-one wants to see safety go backwards but it feels to me like modern F1 is pretty sanitised and that if you’re going to travel at >300kph then you have to accept that there is a small chance of something seriously bad happening. The chances of an F1 driver dying from taking part are already small. The chances of dying from injuries that a Halo would prevent are even more tiny but probability is a funny thing… **** happens.
I guess if the drivers want it then who are we to argue with them?
It’s a fine line, and I don’t really know what the answer is. However, if we do nothing, except the risks as they are and stand back then everything stands still. There is no Jacky Stewart, no Prof. Sid Watkins, no Dr. Hubbard, Jim Downing and HANS, etc, etc. On the other hand, racing will not be what what we know it as now (and then,) if it doesn’t have the excitement and danger. And that means risk of death, period. I think that the term, “acceptable risk,” is the right answer, but the crux is how we asses and define “acceptable.”
New tech regs mean more money is needed, therefore the longer the changes are delayed the better for the small teams and the better for F1.
It’s distressing that the committees are dictating the design of the driver protection. All the teams have engineers for this and I’m sure we would see many useful solutions. Over time a superior design would be adapted, one that was tested in races.
With the automotive industry engaged in universal pursuit of lighter vehicles and all the benefits they bring isn’t it embarrassing that the technical braintrust of F1 keeps making the cars heavier and heavier?
+1 on Senna’s words.
I suppose MotoGP and MotoAmerica should put the motorbikes inside reinforced steel cocoons to prevent lethal accidents like Simoncelli;s, Martinez’ and Rivas’. Oh wait, turn the motorbikes into hovercrafts, and bye-bye dangerous spinning components like chains and wheels. And better, with just one rider on track at a time, there won’t be any more multi-motorbike crashes, saving countless limbs and lives. And to ice the cake, make it RC. Voila, perfect motor racing, folks! [/sarcasm]
While I don’t want to see 3-4-5 deaths per year like in the 70s, single-seat, open-cockpit, open-wheel racing is exactly that. It comes with risks. And the stats since Senna and Ratzenberger show those days are gone. Cars blow to smithereens and drivers walk away without even a bruised fingernail. But no, let’s make sure the feelings of those that don’t watch, don’t care for and don’t understand motor racing don’t get hurt. Utterly ridiculous. Take it like an adult or go find another hobby.
Easy to say when you’re sitting comfy in the press room complaining about the quality of the free food and drink…
I’m not and you have no idea about press rooms.
I believe that bravery should be a very big part of a driver’s arsenal, and I don’t feel like it has been for some time. For me, risk and danger are critical elements in my appreciation for the sport. Halos and closed cockpits just one more thing that takes spectators away from a connection to the pilot.
there shall ever be bravery. driving with any additional head protect with 300km/h through 130R will never be easy business (given that there are not 3 additional roads waiting for you in case you are wrong…) With current free-standing helmets (no full, but to an extent that is enough to make you paralysed quite easily) it’s not a question of bravery. A car may easily flip upside down and land on your helmet, or yours takes off, bumped by another one, and you fly onto the helmet of a compatriot. Do you want to face and take that risk ? The acceptance of such incidents I don’t call bravery, but stupidity.
I think that is probably enough blog responses for one day Sacha.
Sorry, Joe, could you pls efface my last 2 words ? Sounds better without.
Thank you…
Well said, Sacha!
Very well put and I totally agree.
Strangely enough I’ve just realised I don’t care if I can see the driver driving or not! It’s the car I watch and if it gets sideways out of a corner while leaving 2 black marks on the track, so much the better! If it locks a wheel briefly or just touches a barrier but doesn’t crash, then that’s great too! I also watch and apreciate the lines and techniques and mistakes etc., that drivers take/make, but I don’t watch their helmets! You can only see a driver’s helmet anyway and I couldn’t give a stuff about a helmet!
The so-called halo looks quite attractive and it would reduce risk by some percentage but to be sure to help those guys mentioned above who were killed then the cockpit would have to be fully closed in! And I don’t mind that!
But I’ve been concerned for quite a while now about those sharp chisel shaped noses on racing cars and can just imagine them cutting straight into the cockpit in the event of a side intrusion accident!
PK.
3 points Joe,
a/ So are these “Halo’s” going to be mandated by the FIA for lesser open cockpit series (Formula Ford) as well or is it only in F1 that they will have the benefit of these safer devises.
b/ If Halo’s are installed I get the distinct feeling that it will drive a huge number of current supporters away. (Kill the Goose That Laid the Golden Egg)
c/ Deferring till April any decision, I get the distinct feeling that everybody in F1 is not OK with these devises and they definitely won’t be implemented by 2017.
🙂
I agree with a lot of what Joe has said in his post. Like him for me finding the answer is a tough problem. However, on the Halo, i don’t think it very practical, and would prefer a sloped shape to the cockpit sides, bit higher cockpit maybe made of the same stuff as commercial jet cockpit windows, which can withstand tremendous force of impact. The Halo might well get in the way in some rescue situations and might cause impaired line of sight too. An open, higher but clear cockpit would be more logical to me.
Having said all that motorsport can never be 100% safe. I would not like to see continual serious injury or death as there used to be and as i have witnessed myself in the past, but neither can participating or viewing the sport be completely safe, neither is breathing!
The deaths that occur nowadays are thankfully few in number, and irregular, and are nearly always entirely different and would not be prevented by the Halo.
Ultimately drivers have to decide if they want to take the smaller but still lethal risks of motorsport. They should be protected to best standards but have to have some personal responsibility for their safety and that of others. Currently, over the last 30 years, that ethos has been declining because racing has become so relatively safe. The likes of Senna & Schumacher M, great drivers though they were, actively helped this decline in standards by bullying on track which was a shame as both had ability to spare. I know that may not be a popular view, but it ought to be said, and there were times in the careers of both, where had they been racing in the 1960’s or 70’s, either they would have died from reckless driving, or they would have killed another driver. So there is a bit of an argument to be had that driver standards are all part of safety in the sport too, and don’t get quite the spotlight they might merit.
Jack Brabham.
I think both is right and necessary: “They should be protected to best standards…” and “…but have to have some personal responsibility for their safety and that of others.”
“They were candles blown out too early, yet somehow inspiring for the generations to come………In many ways, I think this is how it should be”……… Spot-on Joe; another great post. Senna’s now famous words in a previous post have said it all. The risk has always been and will always be part of the sport. I remember Murray Walker in the immediate aftermath of Imola ’94 say that motor racing can be made safer, but never safe. It’s part of the attraction for those that watch it and for those who take part. I also agree that it’s highly doubtful that a halo/cockpit cover would have saved Senna. The deceleration alone when hitting a concrete wall at 150mph is very likely lethal, irrespective of whether you’re also hit by a detached wheel & suspension as Ayrton was. Indeed, a candle blown out far too early but still an inspiration to millions throughout the world to this day.
Maybe I got the issue confused ? But is it safety versus acstetics ? I am sure there was debate when ” Riding Mechanics ” were banished from the Cockpit! Myself I don’t look at the cockpit, I look at the car far more interesting ! I read recently that race drivers had been asked what car was their favorite and the top choice was the Lola T70 ! Mine would be the Chevron B16. There you go, Sports Cars, as apposed to the tarted up Trials cars that Chapman developed into the 7. And did not Benz field a closed cockpit , covered wheel Gran Prix car???
Joe, Good post, I agree with your comments re Formula 1.
I would normally say it should be up to the drivers to decide what level of risk they are prepared to take. This will vary from driver to driver of course. Once the rules are set a driver will decide if he wants to enter that arena. The rules have to be set though, the drivers can’t do that, so ultimately it comes back to the regulators.
I love open cockpit, open wheel racing. I would like it to continue. I would like the best drivers in the world to compete in this formula. I hate seeing people dying, in general, particularly people I have admired and watched sometimes for seasons on the racetrack. I would be happy to not see another motorsport death for the rest of my life. I don’t think for a minute though that I have any right to decide what is too much or too little risk. There are many reasons I haven’t pursued a racing career, primarily lack of talent, but also lack of cojones. I admire and respect that there are people out there who are happy to let me watch them put it on the line. I don’t believe anyone is forced to be a racing driver.
Nanny States – well I would be happy to see compulsory bike helmets and safety belt laws removed. Idiots who cause accidents on roads are possibly more likely to go through their windscreens, maybe that would eventually make it safer for the rest of us with seat belts. A lack of a bicycle helmet might see the neighbourly idiot kid out of my hair before he turns 18 and I have to deal with him vomiting drunkenly in my yard. I’m divided on compulsory voting, I want everyone to participate but then also think maybe you should do a test to qualify to vote, provided your test answers are satisfactory to my specific opinions. Let people skyglide, and base jump, why not, but I’d also let them drop LSD, and take ecstasy at night clubs, and all of a sudden we find that a whole handful of people who get antsy about the restrictions of a nanny state start throwing their arms up and talking about things going too far.
Like the self proclaimed “rightwinger” is all about self determination, until it comes to the rights of a woman to abort – who will argue the right to carry guns but not the right to carry drugs. The “political correctness gone mad” laddie who cries wolf when his middle aged white entitlement is pointed out to him. In Australian politics this week we saw a conservative politician call to an opposition leader “at least I’m an honest, at least I’m not a fraud”, and then get all hot under the collar about the response “at least I’m not a homophobe” – the pollie who was called out for being a homophobe is well know for linking the right to same sex marriage to the social acceptance of having sex with animals. The fact that he initiated by calling his target a dishonest fraud didn’t seem to affect his indignation at being hit back. A great advocate of the right to call people names, but as usual not very good at taking it.
We have a lot of silly, unnecessary restrictive laws. We also have a lot of very serious, invasive, surveillance and monitoring laws. We could all do a lot better having some of the serious ones repealed along with the silly ones. Whilst I don’t hope for more deaths in motor racing I think a few more humans taken out of the gene pool for being too stupid to follow common sense is not a bad thing.
and if those take out some good guys out of the gene pool ?
Hi Sacha, I’ve read all of your posts on this subject so I understand where you are coming from. In general, it doesn’t matter how many rules you have in life you will never stop some people, including some “good guys” being taken out of the gene pool.
I don’t want to see people die on race tracks, or on roads, or at beaches, or on mountains, or in shopping malls and city centres. Accidents will still happen. I agree with many safety measures we have, cars on roads, pedestrians on footpaths, traffic lights, etc. but if I think I can run across the traffic against the light nothing will stop me, or whoever it is that wants to try it. If I am too stupid to understand that driving without a seat belt increases my risk of dying then I don’t necessarily deserve to stay in the gene pool, whether I’m a good guy in other ways or not. If I’m that stupid maybe I’m don’t qualify as a good guy anyway.
If we cotton wool everything and everyone we actually dilute the gene pool. We also need risk takers, without them there would be no exploration, no voyages of discovery, no-one to break the sound barrier… Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier with broken ribs, he hid his injury as he knew he would be stopped and had to fashion a last minute tool so he could close the hatch. By all rights he shouldn’t have been allowed near an airplane yet alone a mach 1+ missile – we need people like this in our gene pool.
I don’t disagree with your basic concern for humanity, I share it, in general I am all for finding ways of keeping people alive – I am also all for seeing that people aren’t discriminated against based on race, colour, religion or sexual preference, and I fully support laws that step in when others take advantage and persecute on that basis. I don’t want to see another Senna accident, nor a Bianchi accident, nor a Wilson, and I feel sick every time I see a big crash – but as I choose to not race it is not for me to tell drivers what they can or can’t do. Unless a safety feature is promoted by the GPDA or similar then to a large degree I am hands off.
We can’t and shouldn’t try to eliminate all risk in life, that is not life. The age of digitisation will come soon enough, but I shall prefer to be flesh and blood.
Thank you Adam, took me a while to come back. What I meant is “what if a good guy taken out of the gene pool — without being guilty of any wrongdoing e.g. when another car takes off the ground no matter of which reason and flies across his cockpit, ramming his helmet. Or the brakes of the “good guy” fail and his car touches another one and takes off and lands upside down on a track barrier right on his helmet ? I don’t wanna cotton-wool everything, but it’s rather a wonder that we haven’t seen much more fatal accidents yet, or paralysed pilots. I’ts a just too obvious safety gap. Halo is just a half-solution, not enough. This is why I tried to propose F1 a different one. Unfortunately, yet predictably, without success.
There are several key phrases in the political safety spokesman. I’ll try and get a couple right despite being retired from the business..
This must never happen again.
We will be a leader/best in class in safety.
There is no limit to spend on safety.
The trouble is they are virtually meaning less as how do you actually measure success/failure.
The truth is that safety can be measured quantitatively. It is however difficult when the ‘population is small.
What politicians don’t like to talk about is how you actually make consistent, credible and repeatable decisions. Of course and decision will become emotive as soon as it involves personal injury/fatality. rather than just equipment, profit etc. It requires a proper framework of values and rather than acceptability recognition its about tolerability and a lot more detail such as voluntary or involuntary risk.
Despite what might be claimed quantitative safety decisions have been made in industry for decades, as they have in many Government departments. They are even enshrined in law in several Countries.
However, Safety Engineering is as much a specialist area as all others. Not all the information on Halo is available, but my worry is that it seems to have been a logical approach, but even at the start was there a proper analysis of the HAZARD they were trying to address. As only a few mutter, is it a solution to maybe more common, but rare small part impacts (wishbone, spring, etc) rather than complete wheels.
Another, and dreaded aspect, is a post improvement risk assessment. Too often safety improvements actually create more hazardous conditions. Does a halo still allow (an are extensively worked on) the same level of self and assisted driver extraction?
All these worries to me are about the often poor solution selection I’ve seen in industry as well as motorsport, though some industry and Governments have improved over decades. It had to along with the complexity of industry itself. FIA should have the ability to professionally address safety in a manner that doesn’t professional engineers cringe
took me a bit to gain an inkling of what you might have meant. So, you agree that Halo is a half-solution that does not address a large amount of possible head-related accidents, right ? This is why I have proposed FIA / Teams a solution with a self-supporting double cross-bar, mounted into the neck bolster plus a front “screen” without screen, but with Kevlar mesh fabric.