F1’s Halo Cockpit Protection — Solving Problems That Don’t Exist
This week, the FIA announced that Formula 1 would introduce the very controversial Halo cockpit protection for the 2018 season. The Halo is designed to provide extra protection around the driver, and prevent serious injuries and deaths in the sport.
There is no doubt that Formula 1 is an inherently dangerous sport. Despite the talents of the pilots, when there are twenty or more vehicles travelling at speeds in excess of 300km/h in close proximity to each other, there are significant risks. Since 1970, Formula 1 has taken safety extremely seriously, and in the past 30 years, only 3 drivers have lost their lives. Austrian driver, Roland Ratzenberger, and 3-time World Champion, Ayrton Senna, both tragically died in a horror weekend at Imola in 1994, and French driver, Jules Bianchi lost his life after injuries sustained in an accident at Suzuka in 2014.
Since the deaths of Ratzenberger and Senna in 1994, Formula 1 has been an incredibly safe sport, with only three significant injuries. Michael Schumacher suffered a brake failure at Stowe corner at Silverstone in 1999, sending him headlong into a wall. Schumacher broke his leg, and missed over 3 months of racing. In 2009, Felipe Massa was struck in the helmet by a suspension spring from Rubens Barrichello’s Brawn, knocking him unconscious as he entered turn 4 at Hungaroring. Massa was rushed to hospital with severe injuries, and he missed the remainder of the season. Massa had a metal plate inserted into his head and passed neurological testing to allow him to return to the grid for the 2010 season. The other major injury was the aforementioned Bianchi. Bianchi’s Marussia lost control in wet conditions and he struck a recovery vehicle that was attending to an earlier crash from Adrian Sutil. Bianchi passed away 9 months after the accident due to the massive head injuries sustained.
F1’s safety initiatives since 1994
After the Imola Grand Prix in 1994, Formula 1 introduced a range of safety measures to limit and prevent further injuries and fatalities. A pit lane speed limit was introduced, and 27 corners were identified as high-risk, and would need to be changed or removed. Over the next 5 years, the FIA took steps to slow the cars down and make them safer, including the implementation of cockpit restrictions, accident data recorders, and more stringent rules on crash-testing and driver licences. Early in the new millennium, the HANS device was implemented, and engine size was further reduced. Safety cells and side impact protection was also improved. As the years go on, the FIA continues to improve the safety of Formula 1 through track improvements, engine restrictions and car design. There is no underestimating the measures the FIA have taken, and consequently Formula 1 is an industry-leader in safety.
Justin Wilson’s Indycar death and the FIA’s response
In 2015, just months after the death of Jules Bianchi, former-F1 driver Justin Wilson was tragically killed in an Indycar race at Pocono Raceway. Race leader Sage Karam had spun into the wall, debris bounced off the wall and the nosecone of Karam’s car struck Wilson in the head. Wilson was rushed to hospital in a coma, and was pronounced dead the following day. It was a dark few weeks for motor racing.
The FIA had already been investigating front impact cockpit protection since the 2009 injury to Felipe Massa, but the deaths of Bianchi and Wilson accelerated their efforts. They put provisions in the regulations for the Halo device to be implemented in the 2017 season, and on-track testing to begin in 2016. In July 2016, the F1 Strategic Group voted to delay the implementation of the Halo until 2018 to conduct further testing and examine alternatives. By the end of 2016, all drivers on the grid had completed at least one lap with the Halo device fitted.
The Halo device’s strengths and weaknesses
The Halo is essentially a curved bar just above the drivers helmet height, which extends and connects to the nosecone in front of the driver’s face. The Halo is a robust bit of kit. Prototypes have been made from steel or titanium wrapped in carbon fibre, with three mounting points to the safety cell of the car. In preliminary testing it withstood a 20kg tyre fired at it at a speed of 225km/h. The Halo also provides more surface area on the vehicle for sponsorship.
Aesthetically, the Halo is an eyesore. It very much looks like an afterthought rather than cutting-edge design. It obstructs the fans’ view of the driver, and marginally obstructs the driver’s view of the track (although most drivers have stated that the vision is not badly impacted and racing would be possible). In testing, the Halo device has had significant impact on airflow and cooling for F1 cars, although some of this will be mitigated when cars are designed with the Halo as part of the design. Another weakness of the Halo design is the added difficulty in extricating a driver from the vehicle.
Alternative designs have also been tested, including Red Bull’s ‘Aeroscreen’ and Ferrari’s ‘Shield’ design. Both are made largely of polycarbonate, and are much more visually pleasing for the fan, however they each have their own drawbacks. The Aeroscreen did not perform anywhere near as well as the Halo in crash testing with large objects, although the polycarbonate is more likely to stop smaller objects making contact with the driver, such as the suspension spring which injured Felipe Massa. The Shield design was trialled by Sebastien Vettel at Silverstone last weekend, but he complained of distorted vision, which effectively makes the design untenable.
Why the Halo is a bad idea?
Its very easy to look at the performance of the Halo in testing and think it is an important safety feature for Formula 1 going forward. After all, safety is more important than aesthetics. However, looking at recent history, would the Halo device have prevented any injuries or deaths at all? FIA testing has stated that the injuries sustained by Jules Bianchi in Suzuka, would not have been prevented with the addition of a Halo device. Likewise, Michael Schumacher’s broken leg at Silverstone would have occurred with or without a Halo fitted. Watching Felipe Massa’s accident again today, its clear that a Halo would not have prevented this injury either. The spring passes wide of where the Halo attaches to the nosecone, and below the height of the lateral bar.
If we go back further, the death of Ayrton Senna would have still occurred with a Halo, as the Halo would not have prevented the steering column from breaking. The death of Roland Ratzenberger would also have still occurred, as his accident was a result of his front wing breaking and getting stuck under the car.
The Halo has clearly been designed to prevent large objects from striking the driver in the head, such as a wheel. Since 2011, each wheel is held to the car with two Zylon tethers, and the detachment of wheels from cars in an extremely rare occurrence. The instance of debris striking the driver, such as in the Justin Wilson Indycar crash, is far more likely to occur in oval-track racing, where the banked corners and the high fences in close proximity to the track direct the debris on to the race track. This simply doesn’t happen in Formula 1.
The FIA claims that the Halo will increase survivability by 17%. However, the type of incident where a Halo would be effective doesn’t happen in Formula 1. That’s not to say it can’t happen, and it’s not to say the Halo will not prevent an injury in the future, but it seems illogical to create safety equipment for something so unlikely to happen. There are risks that are foreseeable, yet so unlikely, that there is no point protecting against. There have been 137 Grand Prix since wheels have been double-tethered in Formula 1, and there has not been an incident, nor a near-miss where the Halo would have been beneficial. Introducing mandatory Halo protection is equally as preposterous as introducing mandatory protection for terrorist attacks or meteor strikes. There is near-enough to zero chance of the protection ever being needed. I’m not at all against safety, however I am against unnecessary measures.
Formula 1 has recently taken steps to bring the drivers closer to the fans, and the Halo undoes much of this work. Drivers will be more difficult to identify, and the cars will be less visually impactful. This wouldn’t be a bad thing if the Halo provided a safety benefit, but such incidents are figments of the FIA’s imagination. The FIA has solved a problem that doesn’t exist.
Unfortunately, at least for 2018, we are stuck with the Halo. We will have uglier, heavier, less fuel-efficient cars all so the FIA can protect against something which doesn’t happen. It’s incredibly disappointing that Formula 1 has chosen this path, and I fear it is one that they cannot come back from.
