Formula 1 is destroying its own DNA

It was announced last week that the Lausitzring will close as a racetrack at the end of this year, having been acquired by the vehicle inspection company DEKRA as 'a testing ground for automotive innovations'.

Remembered chiefly as the site of two dreadful accidents in 2001, one costing the life of Michele Alboreto, the other causing disastrous injuries to Alex Zanardi, the place will not be widely mourned.

In future it is to be used as a simulation area for self-driving vehicles, so its fate is very much a metaphor for our times.

Together with artificial intelligence (already long prevalent in the political world), driverless cars are coming our way, and some even speak morosely of a time when Formula 1 might be like that. Well, why not? With drivers a thing of the past, it would be way cheaper - and also completely, totally, absolutely, safe.

At Silverstone Sebastian Vettel tested the Shield - for now let's keep the upper-case going - but abandoned it after one lap, saying it made him feel dizzy.

While not in itself something that would have been welcomed by fans, it was at least easier on the eye than the halo, so why could not a decision have been postponed - as it was this year - until further research had been conducted? Instead, at a meeting last week of the F1 Strategy Group it was decided that the halo should be made mandatory in 2018.

Actually, when I say 'F1 Strategy Group', I mean sections of it. Although I'm told that all but one of the F1 teams (said to dress in red) were against the halo, their views were of no account, for they were outvoted by the FIA and the commercial rights holder, the F1 Group (Liberty Media).

I was out of my office when the statement was issued, and heard the news when a friend called me. "Well," he said, "Formula 1's been looking at ways of cutting costs - and it's certainly found a way to cut mine. After this year I'm not going to a race again, and I'll be cancelling my Sky Sports subscription - don't need that for MotoGP..."

This is someone who has attended at least three grands prix a year for as long as I can remember. The whispering hybrid engine and domination by one team were bad enough, he said, but the introduction of the halo was the final straw: "Romain Grosjean's right - this is not Formula 1."

If the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, as a body, is in favour of the move, its members appear to be split. It didn't surprise me, though, that Niki Lauda - who knows rather more than most about the dangers of motor racing - wasted no time in making his feelings clear: more than once we have talked at length about it.

"If we keep on inventing what are - for me - too many safety issues," he said, "we're slowly going to destroy the DNA of Formula 1. If you go too far with these things, it's no wonder that fewer people are watching these days.

"Because of improvements in the cars, including wheel-tethers, and because all these modern tracks have been designed so there is nothing you can hit because the runoffs are so wide, generally speaking Formula 1 has never been as safe as it is today, so now the question for me is how far do we want to go? In the end the attraction of any sport - like Formula 1, like downhill skiing - is how far can we go on safety issues without losing the interest of the people?

"Given the speeds in Formula 1 of course there is still a danger involved, but I think - in a very respectful way - that its DNA should be maintained and this thing with haloes, started by the FIA, has gone too far.

"We need to keep a sense of proportion, and my worry is that we go over the top. The racing on its own is interesting, but there is also the aspect of what these guys are really doing, in the end risking their lives - and without that people are going to lose interest.

"This halo... if you can't see the drivers' helmets anymore, how do you know who's sitting in the bloody car! It's ugly, and it's another layer between the fans and their heroes, and we should leave it."

In a previous conversation Lauda had made the point that in his day Formula 1 had a gladiatorial aspect that had now been greatly reduced.

"I stand by that," said Niki. "The drivers know what risks they are taking - other people worry more about them than they do themselves! They have to decide, 'Do I want to take the risk or not?' But if someone says he wants to make $40million a year, with an easy car to drive, and no risk... I'm sorry, but this is not reality.

"I understand why some of them want this halo thing - but in the end it's not only the drivers who are involved with this sport."

Lauda's last point is unarguable, and if the FIA and some drivers are in favour of the halo, they should not be surprised if the fans hate it. Of course safety matters, but so also - to those who pay to watch - does the whole perception of Formula 1.

No one ever put it better than Ken Tyrrell: "Yes, we need to pay attention to safety - but at the same time we have to be careful not to finish up with something no one wants to watch anymore."

Some time ago, it was announced that the unsightly T-wings are to be banned for 2018, and I was much heartened to learn - given that the look of the cars has always been important to fans - that this had been decided entirely on aesthetic grounds. In light of what's coming, I doubt that anyone will notice.