‘No’ for Halo

i.jpgFormula One’s strategy group met on Thursday and decided against the introduction of the Halo device for the 2017 season.

Despite rumours of the drivers being “90 to 95%” in favour of its introduction, the strategy group coted an overwhelming no. The strategy group involves the Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Williams and Force India teams. Each team on the group will have one vote each, whilst the FIA and the FOM will have 6 votes each. The FIA are represented by Jean Todt, and FOM by none other than Bernie Ecclestone.

Halo (or flip-flop as some quarters have called it), hasn’t been shelved completely and an introduction for 2018 is still on the cards after more development and testing.

“We’ll have to look into it in more detail,” F1 supremo Ecclestone told BBC Sport.

“When you look at it, it was yes and no – we haven’t really got a lot of positives.”

Sebastian Vettel is a known admirer of the benefits that Halo device would bring.

“We don’t like the looks of it but I don’t think there’s anything really that justifies death,” he said.

“We’ve always learnt from what happened, incidents on track, and tried to improve. That will be the first time in human history that we have learned the lesson but we don’t change.

“I think it’s up to us to make sure it does happen otherwise I think we’d be quite stupid.”

Autosport reported earlier in the week that should the vote for Halo be a “no”, the FIA could force it through on safety grounds alone.

Another driver who is in favour of such a move is McLaren’s Jenson Button.

He said: “I think the decision has to be taken on safety grounds. It is not for us to decide if we have it or not, it should be decided by the sport as a whole.

“If the FIA think it is a safety issue to not have it, we should have it on the car. And if they don’t think it is an issue us not having it, then we shouldn’t have it.

“It shouldn’t even be a question for teams I personally don’t think – it is a safety issue. That is the way I think it should be.”

So another yes/no political gunfight is possibly taking place over the device!

Maybe the delay of the Halo device can open the door for Red Bull’s aero screen that has been developed alongside halo, many observers along the pit lane would prefer the look of the aero screen. Driver visibility is perhaps also better with the Red Bull version of head protection.

The strategy group found time to discuss the radio communication ban that has been a talking point recently, promising a relaxation in the rules surrounding this. The track limit debate was also on the agenda after sensors in Hungary and deleted lap times in Great Britain hit the headlines, the group have decided to relax this topic also.

Advertisements

9 responses to “‘No’ for Halo

  1. Also track limits under discussion – electronic policing will only limit the problem. What is needed are proper kerbs – Austria seemed like a step in the right direction – drivers will soon learn that they cannot afford to touch kerbs if it damages their car or looses them a lot of time. Then track limits will not be an issue.

  2. I cant work this one out,first they need to introduce it and the drivers resisted,then they held a meeting and the drivers all said we need it and now the management say we will wait? Wtf is going on? On another note ,I have seen more people attend a test session than I have witnessed in fp1..that’s not a good sign

    • The big Rolex banner over the turn one seats sums it up. What has happened to f1 in Germany? Looks like turn 13 in China.

      • I don’t think it’s just Germany but you would have thought that given the number of drivers that are German and the dominant Mercs plus the history there would be more interest. I was watch a few of the DTM racing on catch-up and the stands were packed, I really do hope that this is not a trend,maybe the loss of free to air TV has had an impact same as all the bad press over group gatherings in recent days.

    • I know precisely what you mean, Oddball. I’ve been shaking my head at every step of this absurd Halo journey. Its conception; how (and why) it was pursued and introduced; the Ferrari vs. RBR versions; the version that was selected; drivers’ responses; FiA power-plays; backflips… the list goes on.

      Knee-jerk reactions and regulation changes are ubiquitous in Formula One – particularly over the last 10-15 years – but I’ve always had some sort of grasp as to the the whys and wherefores of any change, however ill-conceived.

      But with this Halo malarkey, I’ve got no phucking clue. End game: closed canopies.

  3. “We’ve always learnt from what happened, incidents on track, and tried to improve. That will be the first time in human history that we have learned the lesson but we don’t change.” – Seb

    I think Seb needs a history lesson of F1. We have already leaned a lesson that marshal vehicles need bumpers and we have yet to add this simple addition…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s