The three-time champion says the Halo goes against the recent desire to make F1 more appealing and that a different solution should be found
There’s sure to be a lot of discussion about the FIAs sudden decision to mandate the Halo for 2018, particularly as it seems that reaction to it has been overwhelmingly negative. One person you can always rely on to speak his mind is Niki Lauda and he’s against the design, saying that a decision on head protection needs to be delayed whilst a better solution is found.
Lauda thinks that the Halo goes against the sports recent push to become more appealing and engaging with with fans because it looks so…well, hideous. Speaking to Auto Motor und Sport, he said:
“We tested the Halo, the Red Bull Aeroscreen and the Shield as a cockpit protection - but none convinced 100 per cent. You have to make the right decision in such a situation. The Halo is the wrong one. We are trying hard with faster cars and getting closer to the spectators to attract new fans to the sport. But this now is destroyed by an overreaction. The Halo destroys the DNA of an F1 car.”
He also thinks that Formula 1 is currently safe enough to allow the decision on head protection to be delayed until the ideal solution is found and that there was no need to rush the introduction of the Halo.
“The FIA has made F1 as safe as it gets. Also the danger of flying wheels is largely eliminated, because the wheels are always more firmly attached. The risk to the drivers has become minimal. There is 100 per cent a better solution that the Halo. Otherwise we would not have tried three ideas. It would have been more sensible to go in the direction that if we find something that does not destroy the looks of the car, that it be introduced in 2019. It’s as simple as that. There is no reason to do something we will regret later.”
He has a point!