Formula One to Scrap 'Halo' Concept

[Daniel Beard]

Being excited about the prospect of a driver being hurt or killed is absolutely stupid. There. I said it. If that's what gets you excited about racing, stop watching it. I'm sick of people I look up to getting killed because of armchair warriors saying that they need to be in danger for their own morose excitement. It's simply pathetic.



A properly engineered solution will solve, or severely reduce, the problem. As for added complications? It may make some things worse in some fringe situations, but if it makes things better in the majority situations then it has a net gain, and is therefore a positive solution.



So? It's racing, not a beauty pageant. Some shouldn't have to die because you think the vehicle isn't pretty enough. That's insane on the face of it. Not to mention the fact that F1 cars have been very ugly for the last 20 years anyways. They are not pretty machines. And I'll note that uggo-factor has nothing to do with safety; their ugliness has all come from engineers trying to maximize potential under the rules. And the rules are mostly in place because of tradition.



No, it isn't. Just look at the massive strides that have been made in the last 50 years. I'll repeat what I said before; F1 isn't boring because safety has increased. F1 is boring because there's no passing on track, and there is not one single safety measure that has lead to that, it's purely down to what makes the cars fast (downforce). And again, if people have to die for you to be interested in the sport than there is a serious issue.



If that's what determines what makes someone a man, then not a single person on this forum is a man. Useless platitudes do nothing.



Those things are all still true of a modern F1 car, and they're still pretty damn safe all things considered.



Knowing the risks doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be mitigated. Racing is entertainment. It's still dangerous, and it always will be, but that's no reason to not try to make things safer. The computer technology doesn't make the cars safer, it makes them faster, which is obviously antithetic to safety. You've gone off on an unrelated tangent. Louis Hamilton's persona has nothing to do with the safety factor of the sport (not to mention he's still a very skilled driver, whether you will admit it or not. I wouldn't put him in the top 5 or even top 10, but he's still a damn sight better than anyone else here).



Where do you think professional drivers come from? Grassroots and club level motorsport. They don't just materialize from thin air. While pay drivers do exist in top level motorsport, they always have. Always. Even in the 50s and 60s when it was hugely dangerous. As an aside, if you think John Smith from the Whatever Random Backwoods Club Series can hold a candle to 'Systems Operator Lewis Hamilton' then you're seriously delusional. The fact that some guy spends all his meager life savings to keep a Porsche 944 semi-operational at an empty race track in a club race doesn't make him a real racer, it makes him a guy who loves racing and does what he can to do it in real life, regardless of skill level.

You seriously sound like you're just mad that F1 is boring. And that has nothing to do with safety. It has everything to do with it being a stupid way to design a race car if you want a close race.

Like I mentioned previously - WEC provides some damned exciting racing. It's still massively high tech, massively fast and massively safe.



So, your argument is that now that everyone can go flat out, it's worse? You think that people not driving flat out was better? What? That doesn't even make sense!

Congratulations on taking multiple people out of context and missing the point entirely. I don't get mad at F1 cos it boring. I get mad at arrogant a-holes that, instead of politely joining a debate and putting their point across with dignity and respect, instead choose to attempt to slam peoples OPINIONS in some pointless display of dominance most likely based upon their own delusions of grandeur.

Play nice next time, son.

 

[Qazdar Karim]

@Ryno917

You have earned the right to have the last word by using the word "pathetic".

And by the way, these are all opinions ... nothing here makes or doesn't make sense! the existence of this sport itself doesn't make sense.

 

[Ryno917]

Congratulations on taking multiple people out of context and missing the point entirely. I don't get mad at F1 cos it boring. I get mad at arrogant a-holes that, instead of politely joining a debate and putting their point across with dignity and respect, instead choose to attempt to slam peoples OPINIONS in some pointless display of dominance most likely based upon their own delusions of grandeur.

Play nice next time, son.

Eh? Colour me crazy, but you're the one who came in with the 'pussy generation' rhetoric.

I have played nice. I haven't taken anything out of context. Multiple people have said that the sport should be dangerous for their own excitement.

 

[Ryno917]

the existence of this sport itself doesn't make sense.

I'll give you that one, it's certainly true!

 

[ltcars]

And to the rain issue, simply drive faster, the wind should blow the rain away...

 

[Ryno917]

@Qazdar Karim and @Daniel Beard I'd like to apologize for the use of words like 'stupid' and 'pathetic' in earlier comments.

 

[Daniel Beard]

The safety debate is all about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Danger is exciting. Taking risks in any sport, if successful, reaps great rewards. The old days of motorsport were hugely exciting and the guys that were the champions were the ones who had the bravery to actually push their car to 100% of its ability when the guy in 2nd only had the balls to push his to 95%. Thats why it was very common to see superior drivers regularly win in inferior cars. Great days with many hero drivers.

Those hero drivers have many dead friends. Some died themselves.

The sport had to be made more safe. Compromises had to be made.

It all boiled down to the question: What does motorsport need most? Excitement or Death?

In the process of motorsport becoming more safe, the fundamental nature of the top class driver changed. Speed of reflexes and physical conditioning became points of advantage. Bravery no longer meant that you were the last of the late brakers. Reflexes, the ability to hit that brake marker at the right time, every time, made you the best braker in the field. Engineering and academic skills took over from seat-of-the-pants driving and the idea of carrying a bad handling car to the finish through sheer skill as the new driver needs to find a multitude of advantages in the setup of his machine if he wants to add them up to the 100th of a second per lap he needs to win.

Formula one is the pinnacle of automotive technology and abounds with incredible aerodynamic and scientific achievements. And it demands a very different type of person at the helm than it did 50, 30 or even 15 years ago. Louis Hamilton does not have the bravery to drive a 1967 formula one competitively around the Nordschleife. Jackie Stewart, Jim Clark, Chris Amon, Denny Hulme, Jack Brabham and Graham Hill combined would not have the technical expertise to take a modern F1 for one lap around the Green Hell. Old drivers were definitely braver. New ones are definitely smarter.

Times have changed, the drivers and the driving have too. The cars, technically, have never been more interesting. The drivers and the driving has never been more boring. There is no denying that the best car will win. The best driver will not win unless he negotiates his way into the best car. At present, you can take nearly any driver in the field, put them in a Mercedes and, as long as they keep it on the track, they are at least going to get on the podium.

These are the reasons that I watch F1 for the cars and various touring car and GT categories for the driving.

 

[Daniel Beard]

@Qazdar Karim and @Daniel Beard I'd like to apologize for the use of words like 'stupid' and 'pathetic' in earlier comments.

Kudos for having the balls to apologise. That is something that I don't see very often.

 

[Boby Kim]

Why a canopy? In Trackmania they dont have a canopy and they race at 600k with loops and vertical corners

 

[Boby Kim]

This is also very safe

 

[Ryno917]

The safety debate is all about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Danger is exciting. Taking risks in any sport, if successful, reaps great rewards. The old days of motorsport were hugely exciting and the guys that were the champions were the ones who had the bravery to actually push their car to 100% of its ability when the guy in 2nd only had the balls to push his to 95%. Thats why it was very common to see superior drivers regularly win in inferior cars. Great days with many hero drivers.

Those hero drivers have many dead friends. Some died themselves.

The sport had to be made more safe. Compromises had to be made.

It all boiled down to the question: What does motorsport need most? Excitement or Death?

In the process of motorsport becoming more safe, the fundamental nature of the top class driver changed. Speed of reflexes and physical conditioning became points of advantage. Bravery no longer meant that you were the last of the late brakers. Reflexes, the ability to hit that brake marker at the right time, every time, made you the best braker in the field. Engineering and academic skills took over from seat-of-the-pants driving and the idea of carrying a bad handling car to the finish through sheer skill as the new driver needs to find a multitude of advantages in the setup of his machine if he wants to add them up to the 100th of a second per lap he needs to win.

I genuinely don't understand why more people driving to a higher level is a negative thing. More people driving to a higher level isn't why the racing is boring, the racing is boring because modern F1 cars are designed in such a way that passing is near impossible in most situations; bravery has nothing to do with it, nor does safety. The problem is the car itself creates and environment detrimental to close racing.

Formula one is the pinnacle of automotive technology and abounds with incredible aerodynamic and scientific achievements. And it demands a very different type of person at the helm than it did 50, 30 or even 15 years ago. Louis Hamilton does not have the bravery to drive a 1967 formula one competitively around the Nordschleife. Jackie Stewart, Jim Clark, Chris Amon, Denny Hulme, Jack Brabham and Graham Hill combined would not have the technical expertise to take a modern F1 for one lap around the Green Hell. Old drivers were definitely braver. New ones are definitely smarter.

Times have changed, the drivers and the driving have too. The cars, technically, have never been more interesting. The drivers and the driving has never been more boring. There is no denying that the best car will win. The best driver will not win unless he negotiates his way into the best car. At present, you can take nearly any driver in the field, put them in a Mercedes and, as long as they keep it on the track, they are at least going to get on the podium.

This is exactly my point, though. The cars and their design is the problem, and that has absolutely nothing to do with safety. If racing was still as dangerous as it was 30 years ago, but we had the performance technology of today, we'd have the exact same issue; the cars are nearly impossible to pass with. There's so much money in the sport, and telemetry available, the teams would all know exactly how fast the cars should go, so they would put in the drivers that could do it, and everyone would still train to be in peak fitness. We don't have fit drivers because the sport is safe, we have fit drivers because it's be shown that physique is important for lap times.

All that telemetry and traction control and data analysis? Nothing to with safety. Everything to do with performance.

If you keep the actual safety innovations (wheel tethers, 5 point harnesses, fuel cells, safety cells, etc etc etc) but remove the electronics and wings, you'd wind up with a very safe car that could produce some fantastically exciting racing.

These are the reasons that I watch F1 for the cars and various touring car and GT categories for the driving.

Same, although I did stop watching F1 in earnest some 15 years ago. I've watched two races live in the last... 6 years? I watch GT stuff whenever I can, and some touring car stuff sprinkled in for good measure.

 

[Boby Kim]

The real question is....which driver DESERVES a halo above his head....

 

[Coffer]

the guys that were the champions were the ones who had the bravery to actually push their car to 100% of its ability when the guy in 2nd only had the balls to push his to 95%

While I understand your point, it really only applies to the pre-Lauda era. While there is value in maintaing some level of risk (just ask Vettel and Raikkonen), I see no reason why F1 should currently take much inspiration from those times, seeing as, quite frankly, bravery was among the few things most of those drivers even had going for them in terms of driving a car at a competitive level.

Louis Hamilton does not have the bravery to drive a 1967 formula one competitively around the Nordschleife.

You don't know that. Vettel, for instance, is a big fan of old school F1 (particularly as he likes Rindt) and would almost certainly take you up on that challenge, and Hulkenberg and Grosjean would likely consider it as well. That's in spite of the fact that as early as 1976, people were already ready to admit that the Nordschleife is much too ridiculous for F1.

The drivers and the driving has never been more boring.

That really depends on what you grew up with and what you find interesting, and the drivers each have their own different views on this as well (with the likes of Hulk etc being in full agreement with you while others would rather be more safe). I do wonder if simracing will ever become more serious than it currently is, as the lack of physical danger should make it more feasible to employ the kind of bravery seen in ages past.

I do think F1 has gotten worse in recent times, but as the other person you've been replying to a lot said, I also think it's more down to the cars, and even then, I'd wager the current level of skill required to overtake is pretty good at the moment given the extreme dirty air woes from before the start of the season. I'm also the opposite of you in the sense that I still watch F1, but have no interest whatsoever in most other forms of motorsport, especially the likes of GT and touring cars.

 

[JPL083]

"Hey, let's kill people for sport!"

That's what your post says. Your post says the sport is boring because it isn't dangerous. That's simply incorrect.

The sport (F1) is boring because there's no on track action. WEC is exciting because the cars are actually passing eachother and having real battles on the track. And those cars are quite safe and quite fast.

Making the sport safer isn't what ruined F1.

You still dont get it... If someone creates a sport what is dangerous, do you just go in that sport and whine until its changed to crap while others enjoys it? Thats the way it goes now... DRIVER'S CHOISE IN THE LAST PLACE NOT WHINING AUDIENCE'S. Lets go watch destruction derby... Uuu they are crashing cars, lets say that they should not ruin the cars and run your mouth in radio and newspaper and tv and internet and collect people so much that they can stop it, why? To save cars or people? Earth is over populated, full of crap badly and in the end, we all die and vanish. I have suffered cancer, survived from it, for what? To be half sick rest of my life? Its not how long you live, its how you lived your life. And only YOU are making the choice... I wasnt able to do it, and now im suffering. I like cycling, if someone crashes on me and i die while doing it. So be it, at least i was doing something i loved full speed... Most who have been close to death, understand's, and think totally differently, than those that are living "happy" life all the way until end unhurted. Most doesnt LIVE their life, only protecting their image what others see's. Sorry a lot, but thats my opinion and how i live.

 

[Ryno917]

I like cycling, if someone crashes on me and i die while doing it. So be it, at least i was doing something i loved full speed...

Most cyclists wear helmets. Cyclists also, generally, avoid diving out into traffic without a care. Destruction derbies have strict rules to make them safer; helmets, neck supports, safety cages, removal of glass, stopping the event periodically to allow drivers to exit stricken cars, etc. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to look before crossing the street. Just because something can be dangerous, doesn't mean you don't take precautions to make it safe(r).

People saying "I don't want anyone to get hurt or die" in an argument for not making the sport safer is exactly the same as saying "I'm not racist, but..." before saying something incredibly racist. It's a stance that is directly at odds with the statement.

 

[Rob]

The real question is....which driver DESERVES a halo above his head....

That's easy. The only one that's not going to be at Monaco.

"Alonso said he was surprised by the scale of the reception he received in the States.

"I walked in the airport in Indianapolis, in Chicago, and everyone is stopping me and shaking my hands, wishing me good luck, so it was like being in Spain for a moment," said Alonso in Russia on Thursday. "Definitely a big change in America for this race.

"I saw also the audience on television was 50 percent more share on that race, so definitely a bigger impact than what I thought in the beginning.

"As I said, the biggest surprise of this weekend or the last five days was the impact of this news and how many people recognise me in those moments, and in the airport.

"I am used to walking in America quite relaxed and I used to spend holidays in the US because no one recognised you and you had some privacy, and it was not like that in the airports at least."

 

[JPL083]

Most cyclists wear helmets. Cyclists also, generally, avoid diving out into traffic without a care. Destruction derbies have strict rules to make them safer; helmets, neck supports, safety cages, removal of glass, stopping the event periodically to allow drivers to exit stricken cars, etc. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to look before crossing the street. Just because something can be dangerous, doesn't mean you don't take precautions to make it safe(r).

People saying "I don't want anyone to get hurt or die" in an argument for not making the sport safer is exactly the same as saying "I'm not racist, but..." before saying something incredibly racist. It's a stance that is directly at odds with the statement.

Oh lord... Still you dont understand how human lives FULL speed and dont understand what i say, with that said. We could continue this forever, those who understand, understand's. those who doesnt, tell your own opinion's in comment section with sense, dont try to run over others. Like you, not telling your opinion but trying to go over me and trying to make me look bad. Well, thats not gonna happen, i have already other leg in the grave. I live dangerously as long as i live to get adrenaline what makes me live. It doesnt mean that i dont check the road while im crossing it with bicycle, thats idiotic and that i dont wear helmet, but i understand that if i go downhill with my squeaky cheap old bicycle at 45km/h. It might be my last ride, but knowing that and getting on the other side makes me live. If i do it with extrasuperstrongtitaniumalloycarbonrubberframe with helmet and kevlar-shields on me and im inside a some protection balloon, i quit. Dont get nothing from it anymore. I just told earlier what ive had in my life, and why i have these opinions, and still try to run over me, shows just lack of respect for others, and no true life experience. And you keep going and going and no matter what i said or do... Thats how people have handling me thru all my life, not anymore...

 

[Ryno917]

Oh lord... Still you dont understand how human lives FULL speed and dont understand what i say, with that said. We could continue this forever, those who understand, understand's. those who doesnt, tell your own opinion's in comment section with sense, dont try to run over others. Like you, not telling your opinion but trying to go over me and trying to make me look bad. Well, thats not gonna happen, i have already other leg in the grave. I live dangerously as long as i live to get adrenaline what makes me live. It doesnt mean that i dont check the road while im crossing it with bicycle, thats idiotic and that i dont wear helmet, but i understand that if i go downhill with my squeaky cheap old bicycle at 45km/h. It might be my last ride, but knowing that and getting on the other side makes me live. If i do it with extrasuperstrongtitaniumalloycarbonrubberframe with helmet and kevlar-shields on me and im inside a some protection balloon, i quit. Dont get nothing from it anymore. I just told earlier what ive had in my life, and why i have these opinions, and still try to run over me, shows just lack of respect for others, and no true life experience. And you keep going and going and no matter what i said or do... Thats how people have handling me thru all my life, not anymore...

I'm not running over you at all, I'm making a counter point. That's just discussion about a topic.

 

[Rob]

There is a reason that danger and a lack of too much technology attracts real race car drivers. It's not too hard to figure out. That's why Fernando is not going to be in Monaco.

 

[JPL083]

I'm not running over you at all, I'm making a counter point. That's just discussion about a topic.

Ok. It feeled like when discussing about something with most of the people, they always try to find that one spot from the text by anyhow where they try to "attack" and try to look clever against the other. But if not so, good.