Halo is a tough decision ... On the one hand it stops drivers dying and is the most elegant solution, F1 has set a precedent in improving safety and quick adoption of new features - e.g. higher sided cockpits, raised noses, HANS - as soon as new tech is adopted spectators and drivers will quickly adjust and almost forget it's there, just like when there are significant changes to the design of the cars ... however it's not fully comprehensive as it still has gaps in it so won't stop things like the spring that nearly took Massa from hitting the head again On the flip side, and this is Hamilton's argument, open seater racing is F1, that's the risk drivers face when they enter the formula and they know it and still willingly drive the cars ... it's part of the spirit and ethos of the sport. He says he'd rather be driving F1 cars from back in the day than his own. Competing and trying to be fast and on the edge with the risk in your head is all part of the game. If you take that away perhaps drivers who can't deal with that side of it and so never achieve the same success as those who can manage/block out the nagging feeling of 'what if' and 'could die' will start to get an unfair advantage or catch-up to those drivers with better heads and minds. If we'd had closed seaters for the last decade/two decades would we still have the same roster of champions. An interesting thought. Big issues around the proposed new quali format as well with drivers making some hefty statements about the sport being in disarray. Think they should go back to the old shoot out system, fastest lap over set time wins
See they're scrapping the new qualy system after 1 race They do love tinkering with someone every year! Need to sort themselves out. So so question is, do I get up in 5 hours to watch....
Some risk is acceptable if it adds to the sport. Not having the halo doesn't have any improvement to the sport over having the halo though. There's really no reason to not have the halo though. To add "risk and danger" is a silly argument. We could randomly add minefields to the track if we wanted purposless risk for the sake of it.
They really need to do something about F1, is just so dull. Too many rules, every race is pretty much the same as the tracks are almost identical (aside from Monaco), the general lack of overtaking whilst out on track. They've sanitised it so much that its over before its even started. I mean Hamilton won by the 1st corner, but actually he'd won by yesterday.
they need to throw some water on via sprinkles. F1 is only ever interesting when there is dodgy weather and it goes from dry to wet to dry etc
I agree with all of what you say apart from the bit about the tracks. I do agree that some of the tracks are bland and you end up with drab, uneventful races, but as you point out, the current format is just ruining the racing at what are still great tracks like Silverstone, Spa, Monza, Suzuka, Canada, others where the racing used to be intense, close and properly exciting. One of the biggest issues is the current tyres and the fact that the drivers have to manage tyre wear so much which completely destroys the race and doesn't let them push themselves or the cars. Then of course the current cars have their own issues that lead to boring and uneventful racing because the aero doesn't let them follow closely or there's such big gaps between performance of different teams. I don't like drs very much either, it seems like fake overtaking. I suppose we could call the racing 'interesting' at best if you can appreciate the strategic, data side of the sport. But it doesn't feel like real racing, especially not for the purist. The F2 races are better for that, that's how bad it is.
it was but it's just a bs artificial cover over for the lack of anything that looks like actual close, competitive racing
Sato wins Indy 500 ... quite a bad crash happened during the last few laps while he was leading so won it under yellows