July 1st is the deadline for a decision on head protection. By then the FIA will have determined what route to go down for 2017, whether it be the halo or something different.
Many drivers like Fernando Alonso and Daniel Ricciardo think:
“If such a device can save lives, we need to discuss the introduction later.” Plus Hülkenberg and Hamilton have said:
“Formula 1 must remain open, danger is just part of the business.”
Hamilton continued his negative thoughts on the safety device saying during the winter:
“This is the ugliest fad in Formula 1 history. I guess the pursuit of greater safety, but this is Formula 1, and as the cars are currently, that’s fine. “
Lewis then rather strangely mentioned that if it was a voluntary measure, he would not use it. Obviously if an F1 car was designed to work with such a device, it’s doubtful that same car’s aero would work as intended if removed.
Stefan Wilson, brother of the late Justin, believes Hamilton is simply wrong saying yesterday “head protection must come. Lewis Hamilton is wrong.”
“We must be careful that we do not act shortsighted when it comes to this matter. For someone like me who has been through a lot in the past eight months, makes a head-protecting total sense.
I was a good friend of Henry Surtees, the 2009 we also lost due to severe head injuries. So this is an issue that has been with us long time. We need to be improvements in security over open. When the throat and neck protection HANS was introduced, there were also critical voices. Today no Formula 1 driver would go to the web without his HANS. So I understand that a head protection generates resistance, but people will adapt. It will be normal. If it means that we do not lose another driver, then am I do not understand how one can be against such a device. “
Stefan Wilson always dreamed of running the Indianapolis 500 with his older brother, so the 2016 running of the historic event is going to be a bittersweet milestone in his career. The KVSH Racing team is preparing to announce the 26-year-old Brit as its third driver in the 100th Indy 500 this month.
Wilson will join another rookie, Matthew Brabham, and veteran Sébastien Bourdais at KVSH.
I support the idea of head protection, but I totally disagree with the introduction of any crappy system in a rush only for political reasons. Specially when vehicles are still parking in run off areas and track marshalls crossing the track as if they were in the park any Sunday morning.
A closed cockpit, which probably should be the solution to follow, requires a complete re-design of the cars. The French eunuch and friends only want to say that they are doing something for the drivers’ safety when in reality they aren’t, as the behavior of Whiting and the use of track personnel with zero experience shows.
The problem with Lulu is he never managed to get rid of his foot-in-mouth infection.
Well look at that, seems like it’s no longer acceptable to have an opinion as to whether you like or dislike something in F1, without the usual criticism.
You know that’s Lewis’s problem, he’s not willing to behave like a very obedient dog like everyone else.
Why can’t he be like Jenson? Why didn’t he just say, “I like it, in fact it makes the car look more beautiful than it previously was”…
Or like Alonso, “we don’t need heroes”
or like Hulkenberg, “that’s ugly”
Or Ricciardo, “that’s ugly”…. Oh wait Ricciardo only changed his tune, when he got a dressing down by his team.
BTW, I listened the interview, and at at no time did Wilson say, “Lewis Hamilton is wrong. ” This is the only article I’ve read, that has that line.
You’re quite right Fortis, at no point did Stefan Wilson say that Lewis Hamilton was wrong. He didn’t even say his name in the interview I heard on Radio 5.
That said, Lewis is wrong, and so is Hulk. I would have thought that Hamilton as a big fan or Aryton Senna would advocate head protection systems given the wind shield system RBR tried out would have almost certainly saved Ayrton life.
This isn’t about Lewis (or Hulk) obeying, nothing to do with it in the slightest. Bernie is on record as saying he doesn’t like them as well, so drivers needn’t tow the line. That said to reject a safety device on the basis of aesthetics is puerile and idiotic. It’s of no surprise to me that it’s the more mature drivers who advocate safety in the sport, that’s normally the way, a lot of these younger guys are still testosterone filled pups with more balls than brains.
Well if that’s the case, he should’ve been screaming from the hill top years ago for the implementation of said devices, but he hasn’t, so he has remained true to his beliefs.
Sure it’s not about either, but somehow it has all become about what his opinions on the matter are. Furthermore it’s rather disrespectful and ridiculous to advocate that “it’s the more the mature drivers who advocate safety”. All the drivers advocate for safety, but not because you disagree with a particular concept, means you lack maturity, that’s just ridiculous.
“it’s rather disrespectful and ridiculous to advocate that “it’s the more the mature drivers who advocate safety”.”
Not really, F1 has a long history of that, to garner respect perhaps certain drivers should explain why they’re so quick to dismiss safety improvements for reasons other than how something looks bloody looks, it makes them appear incredibly vain.
Which he did, but it seems that was also lost in translation. Garner respect from who, those who don’t agree with said opinion?
Wha—?! Wait, I see how it goes. Jenson Button: “…in fact it makes the car look more beautiful than it previously was”… Button’s comment is ok though because his view agrees with yours. (Of course that wasn’t Button’s only comment just like it wasn’t Hamilton’s but who cares about context when you have some disliking to do.)
@dwil – Button made it clear he’s all for safety improvements, most of his comments have related to the safety aspect. I’ve yet to see a Hamilton comment that doesn’t focus on how the thing looks.
Probably because you don’t want or care to see any.
Paul- Fortis is correct about Hamilton’s various thoughts concerning head protection devices. Should you choose, you can find and read them.
RE: Halo etc “I appreciate the quest for safety but this is formula 1, and the way it is now is perfectly fine”
Doesn’t sound like he’s too keen on improving safety to me in fact it sounds like he doesn’t want any changes.
F1’s current safety issues has nothing whatsoever to do with the cars design. Bianchi accident wasn’t caused because he didn’t have head protection, but by having tractors on a live track.
All this hoopla about head protection is purely reactionary, so as to show the world and the Bianchi family that they are somehow doing something positive.
The current cars are the safest they have ever been in the entire history of the sport, so all this musing about how, “we need to protect drivers more” for me is bullshit!
Kubica, Webber, Sainz Jr, Alonso etc have all survived accidents that I’d say was a lot worse than that of Bianchi (which he too would’ve walked away from, had the tractor not been on the track).
Like Brundle said, “if you’re going to go down this route, then it’s only a matter of time before we have driverless cars”.
There’s far more hysteria now than when Massa had his near fatal incident (which was a freak occurrence). Now I can understand why people don’t see the drivers as “heroes” anymore.
But your reply was what I’d expected, because he’s not regurgitating the same rehearsed lines of his more “mature” competitors. As if agreeing with something is somehow a sign of maturity.
A lot of the arguments again closed cockpits are that they make the driver less visible.
However, compare an 80s F1 car to one of today when the cockpit sides have been raised so much you can barely see the driver anyway.
Going completely closed might even mean the driver can be more ‘open’ and visible – albeit behind a piece of plastic. I’d also suspect drivers wouldn’t need such a heavy helmet so you have another neck / spine protection improvement.
I’d also ask just how often the drivers have been listened to when things like this get decided. There will always be people who have opinions and feel strongly about those opinions. They aren’t necessarily wrong but not everyone has the same agenda and while F1 has been fairly lucky compared to other categories of late that won’t necessarily continue. Going back in time Ice Hockey players didn’t bother wearing helmets and spectators were protected by a bit of netting hung around the edge of the rink. You’d never imagine that these days and to be honest in the main it makes very little difference to spectators.
it not like Wilson is the only one that said or believe “Lulu” is wrong on this one.
And it is perfectly acceptable with me for everybody to have his own opinion, not only on this, but on all other things, that is why I express mine.
While it’s “perfectly acceptable with me for everybody to have his own opinion, not only on this, but on all other things, that is why I express mine,” it is wholly unacceptable to: 1) fail to comprehend what you read in an above comment; 2) fail to look for the article and interview clip where the person in question makes his statement about driver protection, and; 3) then try to pass yourself off as having an opinion on the subject matter.
As a result, the question is now, what don’t you get about, Stefan Wilson DID NOT say Lewis Hamilton’s name? Though Wilson averred, “I don’t know how anyone can be against that,” relative to so-called head protection devices, we can only make an assumption about his thoughts on Hamilton’s statement. We, in fact. do not KNOW how he feels about what Lewis Hamilton “believe” (sic).
The ONLY mention of Lewis Hamilton being “wrong” was a statement of opinion that sprung from the mind of some enterprising BBC copy editor.
reading this article of which we talking about “Justin believes “Lulu” is wrong” “head protection must come, Lulu is wrong”. is there another “Lulu” around of which I don’t know about?
could be that I am still failing to comprehend what am reading.
Stefan… http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03tmssq.
@salvu borg
Regards your query as to there being any other ‘Lulu’s’ out there, I know of at least one – for the ornithologists in the crowd, it’s a red-crested Scottish warbler.
From the first moment that you step in a go-kart to pursue a career that leads to F1, you have basically accepted the risks that are involved with open cockpit racing. Even though it is a tragedy for everyone involved when something happens it is a known risk. If you don’t like that risk, you should have gone for the closed cockpit route that leads to Nascar, GT or DTM kind of racing. IMHO it is hypocrit to complain now. After 100 years of all kinds of open cockpit racing with all the deaths involved. Don’t think that I like what happened to Surtees, Wilson, Senna, Ratzenberger and all the ones before them. But it was a present risk when they stepped into their cars. Those open wheels, walls, trees were there. The only thing that people and racers should not accept is stuff like tractors on a live track in tricky conditions, a lack of fire extinguishers and trained personell (Roger Williamson), people running across a track, untrained marshalls, serious flaws in tracks, unsafe fuell cells and refuelling stations and stuff like that.
IMHO you either accept the risk of open cockpits or you internationally ban all open cockpit racing in favour of fully closed strong cars like LMP1’s, DTM or GT or something new. That means all open go karts (with which you can crash horribly too), formula Fords kinds of stuff, everything. But not this inbetween solves only 25% of the problems halo bullshit.
My 3 year old daughter says that she wishes to race a motorcycle like daddy. Should I let her? It is even riskier than F1. When I let her and she dies aged 5 or 25 due to some risk inherent to motorcycle racing it would be tragic. Until she is 18 I should feel fully responsible because she cannot see the risks at this point. But when she becomes aware of Kato, Tomizawa, Simoncelli and the like, but she still decides to get on that bike. And something happens then, there is nobody to get mad at. Or should I at that point suddenly decide to get motorcycle racing banned?
100% agree with you.
Motorsport is inherently dangerous, as are many things that involve both man (squishy) and machine (non-squishy).
The only truly safe strategy is for them to walk, and we all know how ridiculous competitive walking looks…like a slow race to the bathroom between a group of people who look like they’ve collectively shat themselves.
I’m not sure I understand the objection…
First, it sounds like we call all agree that having support trucks on a live track is ridiculous, and should be fixed immediately.
Beyond that, is the argument that F1 is already exactly as safe as it should be? That all of the safety advances that have been made to this point were necessary, but any more would be frivolous? That seems at best unlikely to me.
Is the argument that F1 is *already* too safe? That we should do away with things like crash-rated noses, high-sided cockpits, HANS devices?
It seems more reasonable to me that we continue to pursue incremental safety advances as we’ve always done. Are closed cockpits/halos/windscreens the *best* may to mitigate head injury? Perhaps not. Should we use one of them while we work on something better? Doesn’t that seem wise?
Unfortunately this seems to be the flavour of most contemporary debate…
Speak your mind, you’re selfish/arrogant.
Diplomatic? Corporate drone.
A strange state of affairs, considering almost all of life exists in the space between black and white.
This whole halo concept is a load of reactionary bullshit! I’m sorry that both Surtees and Wilson lost a family member and as such are now an advocate for this new concept.
But Massa had a near fatal incident himself only 7 years ago and there was no such outpouring for the implementation of head protection devices. Both are being hypocrites because of their loss and a lot of what they’re saying is based on the emotions they’re still struggling with after the passing of their loved ones.
More people have died in MotoGP in the last 10+ years compared to F1 and the only safety device they’ve come up with is, airbags in the riders leathers.
They all knew the risk involved from they were old enough to go go-karting.
Again sorry for their loss, but this to me is both of them just being complete hypocrites.
More riders have died in motogp in the last 10 years? Other than Simoncelli, I would need reminding of any other victims.
Safety improvements in motogp have been made (often by way of track changes) and serious injuries are rare.
Daijiro Kato 2003 and Shoya Tomizawa 2010.
One more than 10 years ago, the other not in motogp. Showa raced in moto2.
Yea i know he raced in Moto2, maybe i should’ve made that clearer, but it still applies as they all operate under the same rules
So, if the pursuit of safety is paramount, why was ABS banned in F1? It has been a major contribution to road safety for many years and has prevented many deaths yet was removed in 1993 being cited as a ‘driver aid’.
The same reason TCS was banned. To ensure it’s the driver controlling the cars systems. HANS, high side head protection, Halo/screens don’t remove the skill of a driver to control the vehicle, they simply ensure that if there is an accident the driver is as well protected as possible.
Maybe in Justin’s case his height was a contributing factor?
To me F1 is dangerous and it should be.
Today I don’t see drivers as heroes with their asses on the line every time they sit in a car.
I’m sure I could drive one of these today’s F1 cars provided I can fit in it. Given enough practice and training anyone can fair reasonably well.
It wasn’t like that before.
Only ones with balls of steel were fast enough to captivate our imagination and to became true heroes.
F1 lost it’s magic over the decades uf neutering the sport, by virtue of slowing down the cars.
What’s really wrong with cars being fast? Lap time records are more than decade old, that’s a shame.
Teams should be allowed to do their business of going as fast with their machinery, while FIA, Berine, CVC or whoever should go about their Business of selling it to us.
“We must be careful that we do not act shortsighted when it comes to this matter. For someone like me who has been through a lot in the past eight months, makes a head-protecting total sense.
I was a good friend of Henry Surtees, the 2009 we also lost due to severe head injuries. So this is an issue that has been with us long time. We need to be improvements in security over open. When the throat and neck protection HANS was introduced, there were also critical voices. Today no Formula 1 driver would go to the web without his HANS. So I understand that a head protection generates resistance, but people will adapt. It will be normal. If it means that we do not lose another driver, then am I do not understand how one can be against such a device. “
Is this the actual quote? From a Brit? It reads like it spent a couple of spin cycles in Google Translate.
The big difference between the HANS device and a closed cockpit is that the HANS did not result in a compromise. It restricted head movement a wee bit but not much. The halo/shield on the other hand requires a huge compromise.
Plus, there are the downsides of the devices that need to be considered. When you don’t look at the downsides as well as the upsides, you are making a knee jerk reaction.
And as everyone has said, the head protection may cause more issues than it solves. The amount of debris that can hit the head is less common with wheel anchors, than the ability for the car to land on its head.
@**Paul**
“That said to reject a safety device on the basis of aesthetics is puerile and idiotic.” And, “to dismiss safety improvements for reasons other than how something bloody looks, it makes them appear incredibly vain.”
Agreed.
“I’ve yet to see a Hamilton comment that doesn’t focus on how the thing looks.”
Neither have I. The vast majority (perhaps all?) of Lewis’ comments on the proposed safety device are limited to the aesthetics. I’ve a feeling any logical and well-reasoned opinions from Lewis on the matter don’t exist; perhaps like Nico’s “scrubbed” photos and false quotes from James Allen. If they did, I’m sure links would’ve been forthcoming.
My opinion on the safety device is negative. I don’t like it based on driver vision. When I raced, vision was a real problem for me. I hated visual obstructions, so much so that in F3 I was positioned much higher in the seat to see more clearly. Liuzzi was the same throughout his career. Matt showed me a simulation of Ferrari’s halo and frankly it was terrible and very distracting, especially during any undulations – think Spa and Monaco. I imagine RBR’s system will be similar. I think the sport needs to go to a full, integrated (clear) canopy, or remain open.
As for how it looks… who cares? Oh, wait. 😀
Take care, mate. Spain! Woop woop!
@WTF_F1
Oh, and that “false quote?”
It was Will Buxton: “In The Usual Suspects, Kevin Spacey’s character Verbal Kint comes out with the immortal line: “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” I think of this line every time I hear somebody tell me that Hamilton isn’t as intelligent as Rosberg, or doesn’t have the capability to understand the cars.
Because, for me, the greatest trick that Lewis Hamilton ever pulled, was convincing the world that he wasn’t smart.”
https://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/the-contenders-lewis-hamilton/.
Keep dog-paddling into breakers.
Yes, I’m aware of that. I told you that – as a well as our fellow commenters – in a recent comment to you. As for “Dog-paddling into breakers,” despite the façade having fallen, I continue marvel at your view of yourself.
Amusing is very quickly turning into sad. Breakers indeed.
@WTF_F1
The hell? You and who else told me what??? Please link me to the comment. And if the mistake is one of attribution, how fucking petty can you be?
Try to remain calm.
Also, try not to be so disingenuous. I’m sure you know perfectly well that the source matters. On the other hand, maybe you don’t.
You are a journalist after all… you spent an hour telling us below.
Peace out.
@WTF_F1
“I understand safety is a huge issue and something we have to work towards, but this is not the one,” And: Hamilton said F1 cars had lost “the cool look they used to have in the 1980s and 1990s”, adding: “It is not F1 for me.
“If they do implement it, I hope we have a choice of whether we have to use it and are not forced to, because ultimately it is our safety.”
None of the three statements are about aesthetics of the proposed head protection device(s). NONE.
So, I gather if demeaning an aspect of Hamilton’s personage, a goal and sentiment aplenty in and around the media, you can, as a reporter (I understand few of you were or are but…) you can, given the space within your publication, fully quote your subject. If space is limited or you want to do some subtle editorializing about your subject you can cherry-pick quotes that substantiate your perception(s) about your subject. THEN there is the further editorial process – larger-staffed media outlets – where editors are involved who may either: okay the fully-quoted conversation; ask the reporter abut the overreaching context of the conversation and pick out quotes that speak to that context; cherry-pick the quotes that substantiate his or her perceptions – the media outlet’s socio-political and cultural bent as well – of the subject, or; cut quotes based on space and time. THEN, at larger media outlets, there are copy editors who spell and grammar check and, more often than not, act as headline writers. And the headline, as we’ve seen repeatedly, often does not come close to matching the tenor of the article beneath it.
There is a process to journalism.
I realize that with the advent of “citizen journalism” (a pretty term for blogging) the process that is integral to journalism is becoming rarer and rarer. This fact combined with the advent of Internet-spawned comment sections and the myriad social mediums that act as adjuncts to comment sections, allows readers to immediately react to what is read. Too often commenters react to what they read rather than stop and think about what they read; context of the article or commentary, the sentiments, attitudes, and perceptions of the writer and/or publication, and the goal of the piece read.
What we are left with, too often, are expressions rooted in narcissism and personal bias. Having time to “learn the game” readers – commenters – realize they have the ability to push the conversation in a desired direction just as much and sometimes more than the author of the piece they read.
We’ve reached the point where, though we know every arse has a hole, people now love to fall in.