Does the halo have a place in Formula 1?

Ferrari's trial of the halo head-protection concept in Formula 1 pre-season testing last week reignited the debate over safety in motorsport's highest echelon.

As the FIA continues to investigate how to improve driver protection, an issue that gained greater weight in 2015 with the deaths of Jules Bianchi and Justin Wilson, the possibility of the halo (or equivalent) becoming mandatory in F1 looks more likely than ever.

It would be one of F1's most contentious rule changes. And it's not just among fans that opinion is divided - the debate takes place within Autosport as well.

So is it right for the halo to become mandatory in F1?

MARCUS SIMMONS: AN ARGUMENT FOR BRAVERY
@MarcusSimmons54

Last winter, Norwegian downhill-skiing great Aksel Lund Svindal gave an interview in which he referred to taming the daunting Hahnenkamm course in Austria as a case of turning fear into respect.

This winter, just a few weeks ago in fact, Svindal was one of three skiers to suffer massive accidents on the same course. The injuries to Svindal, who was sitting on a comfortable points cushion at the top of the men's World Cup standings, ruled him out for the rest of the season, and the same fate befell Georg Streitberger. Amazingly, Streitberger's fellow Austrian Hannes Reichelt escaped with just bruising from his own shunt.

At the bottom of the mountain, among an estimated 45,000 crowd, were Bernie Ecclestone, Niki Lauda and Gerhard Berger. Every time a skier crashed, the TV cameras would pan to the motorsport trio and it was notable that their faces seemed to register genuine shock.

As I watched, I remember thinking that it must be some time since they got so close to a sport in which the participants pitched themselves into such a raw, visceral battle that was not just man against man, but man against the elements and all the danger that entails. A sport where you could admire the participants not just for their skills but also for their bravery. Just like Formula 1 used to be.

Niki Lauda is all too aware of motorsport's dangers © LAT

Of course, Ecclestone, Lauda and Berger have all been close to tragedy within their sport, the two Austrians a hair's breadth from their own deaths, and no one wishes a return to the horrors of the 1960s and '70s. But it is worth raising the question as to whether at least some element of danger is a necessary part of the sport's appeal.

Nico Hulkenberg has done this in the wake of F1's trialling of the cockpit halo, and for every Hulkenberg who is prepared to offer what could be regarded as a controversial opinion we have to imagine there are a few others who privately agree.

Have we gone too far? Are those Tilke tracks with acres of asphalt run-off a turn-off? Will those ugly haloes - and to think we were getting all worked up about anteater noses! - prove the same? Should F1 drivers really be in an arguably safer position than, say, all those thousands of boys and girls gunning their ponies over show-jumping or hunter-trial fences and ditches every weekend?

This is a question the sport needs to ask itself. I'm as horrified as anyone at the prospect of death or serious injury, especially as it's happened to people I have known and liked, but I wonder whether we are oversanitising motorsport. Besides, an element of danger arguably improves etiquette and sportsmanship for fear of the consequences of reckless driving.

Downhill skiing can have fatalities too, yet we haven't seen World Cup courses festooned with chicanes or the adjacent forests cleared to create run-off. You may argue that corporate backers are reluctant to associate themselves with dangerous sport, yet Audi has a very visible presence in skiing.

Going back to Svindal's comment, do we have a need for our sporting heroes to be conquering fear in their endeavour, or is this - as far as F1 is concerned - an arcane 20th-century relic?

EDD STRAW: PROGRESS OVER TRADITION
@EddStrawF1

The halo is one of several concepts for improving protection of the driver's head in Formula 1. They aren't aesthetically pleasing and the gut reaction is that they have no place on a grand prix car. But gut reactions are not scientific.

First of all, we have to modify the question to include the caveat that whatever concept is adopted - if it is adopted - has to be proved to be a net gain in terms of safety. That means it must stand up to the forces involved, not compromise driver egress and allow medical teams good access in the event of an accident.

The unintended consequences must be investigated thoroughly and the FIA Institute has stated that research is ongoing. This includes any risks to trackside workers and fans, which played a part in the jet-fighter canopy concept losing support as it ran the risk of deflecting loose objects huge distances.

So let's suppose we have conclusive proof that this change will improve safety in a significant way (this might be the Mercedes-conceived halo concept, or one of the variations). In this hypothetical scenario, we know with certainty that on a long enough timeline, it will save a life. And this would be based not on supposition, anecdote and hearsay, but cold, hard data and analysis combined with the laws of probability.

Then the debate boils down to its simplest form. It's about the fact that something looks ugly and unusual versus the knowledge that, eventually, it will save someone's life. In this situation, where the safety gain is proved beyond question and the unintended consequences thoroughly understood, we could be certain that an accident similar to the one that claimed the life of Henry Surtees in Formula 2 in 2009 would not have a fatal outcome.

It's very easy to state that motorsport is dangerous (it says so on the ticket, as the familiar argument always runs). It is, and always will be.

Henry Surtees' fatal crash is cited as one where the halo could have made a life-saving difference © XPB

So it's not an inconsistent position. It's also a position a great many have taken over the years, but when looking back at what's been written in the past questioning such safety measures, it becomes more troubling. In fact, it seems to have been used to argue against most of the safety changes we've seen over the years.

Death will always be part of a human endeavour like motorsport. This is not an attempt to eliminate risk. The argument that you might as well not go racing if you're so worried is fallacious - the whole point is to keep doing it, but as safely as possible.

It all depends whether you think motorsport is a bit of a blood sport. Does the fact that physical injury could be the result of getting it wrong make up a big part of the appeal? Some say it does, but that seems unlikely, simply because there are plenty of other sports that pay a far heavier toll. If that's what you want, go and watch downhill skiing or various horse or bull-based activities.

Besides, even with improved head protection, cars will still collide, hit things and be launched through the air as spectacularly as before if that's what you're looking for. And if you want blood (the natural consequence of wanting there to be a risk of injury), people will still find ways to get hurt.

The appeal of a driver on the limit is seeing them on the limit. The punishment is the heavy loss of time for a tiny error. Nobody likes to see asphalt runoff areas abused, but that's the fault of officialdom, not their viability as safety measures.

So if there's a clear safety gain, and the heart of racing - fast cars, great drivers, overtaking, laptimes, oversteer, action - survives, is it really that bad?

I certainly wouldn't like to be the one to decide against it and then be writing about another death - another lost parent, sibling or child - a few years down the line. That's not a refusal to accept that death happens, it's about recognising that actions have consequences.

If this kind of driver protection is proved to offer a net safety gain, and the fundamental qualities of grand prix racing are maintained, it must go ahead. To do anything else is not health and safety gone mad, it's progress.

And sometimes progress can be ugly, unfortunately.