Why F1's safety crusader thinks fans were robbed

"Race cars are neither ugly nor beautiful," Enzo Ferrari once famously said. "They become beautiful when they win."

The legendary team boss's words stand true to this day, even if Formula 1's far from pretty halo means that all of the 2018 cars still leave many of us shaking our heads in disapproval. There have been few things in F1's history that have left people with as many conflicting feelings as the halo. On safety grounds, it is 100% the right thing to do. On beauty grounds, it gets the thumbs down.

The downsides of its looks have overshadowed the safety arguments and left a feeling of negativity surrounding something that should have been embraced by all.

But how different would things have been if there had been a better thought process behind its introduction? What if rather than giving a feeling that something ugly and heavy has been reluctantly forced upon the championship, it had been presented as central to a policy that made F1 better?

If fans and drivers could see a clear advantage to a big lump of metal around the cockpit - such as a safety benefit that meant F1 cars could go even quicker, or allow slightly more extreme track designs - then things would have been very different.

Just because something is ugly, does not mean that we cannot come to accept it. But it's the lack of positives for the price fans and drivers have paid for having ugly cars that has clouded things - and Grand Prix Drivers' Association chairman Alex Wurz is very mindful of those concerns.

"I'm absolutely not shy to say that the way halo was handled by us, as a whole Formula 1 community, is an example of how not to go about your product," he says.

Wurz, one of the most intelligent, analytical and passionate men you can chat to in the paddock, is clear that in these days of litigation and liability, F1 had no choice but to push on with the halo once it was proven to bring a clear safety benefit.

But he thinks there should have been some payback for fans: whether it was justifying another step change in speed, or allowing F1 to run at some old-school tracks and get rid of the often despised need to have large asphalt run-off areas.

"In our lives we grew up as kids and it was about faster, higher, quicker. That's what drives the human being," says Wurz. "If we are stopping safety development because we can't go faster because someone is liable for it, that means you are going to expose your product to being overtaken by other products in excitement and feel.

Why don't we make cars significantly safer without jeopardising performance, and let them go faster and race on more extreme circuits? Alex Wurz

"So why don't we go do the opposite? Why don't we make our cars significantly safer without jeopardising performance, and let them go faster and let them race on more extreme circuits - so you don't have endless run-off areas?

"Then maybe we actually achieve the perception of speed and the perception of danger, which you have in places like Baku and Monaco. The impact speeds are quite low but it's perception you know, and the instant consequence of a gravel bed or a wall is of course much more in your face.

"So I think we need safer cars. But then we can stop having endless run-off areas - asphalt run-off zones where there should be no asphalt run-off. There should be gravel or grass, instant punishment, and faster speeds to keep producing lap records and ensuring that we are the fastest cars on the planet."

F1 losing the PR war over the halo also led to some blurred lines about overall safety in the series, and even prompted some to call for it to be made more dangerous. This is something that has particularly frustrated Wurz, because there is no justifiable way to defend moves that would make things deliberately less safe for drivers.

The best crashes are not where anyone is hurt or killed, but when a car appears to be completely destroyed and the driver is able to unclip their belts and walk away. That's when safety has done its job properly.

Arguments that a 'safer' F1 is a turn off for fans are wrong as well - there is no direct correlation between grand prix racing becoming safer and it becoming less popular.

In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. As F1 has got less dangerous over the years it has earned more and more fans. It's boring racing and putting business interests first that does more harm to the overall popularity. It is also unwise to believe that in the modern world of liabilities a sporting category could be allowed to do anything to make things more dangerous.

"We are not in the post-war time where heroism is allowed and yes, people are allowed to die and we salute them," adds Wurz. "We have moved away from that as a society. We can't hide from it."

Wurz is adamant that F1 needs to think more about perceptions. Faster cars racing on tracks where mistakes were punished hard would give the appearance of being more dangerous, even though with the halo on board it would be safer.

With modern simulation software allowing the FIA to know which corners are now safe enough to punish mistakes through grass or gravel rather than asphalt, why not have a bit of a rethink? It would also end F1's track limit debate for good.

"I will give you a great example," says Wurz. "At Silverstone a few years ago [2015] there was a race where Nico Rosberg was second, and Lewis Hamilton was leading. It started drizzling and in Copse Corner, which used to have a gravel bed, Hamilton went off.

"He lost 0.5 seconds, and hardly anyone noticed it. I saw it and I thought to myself: imagine, with Rosberg three seconds behind, that there was a gravel bed, and then Hamilton comes out behind Rosberg, imagine...

"In England at this time, people were still allowed to watch Formula 1 on free-to-air TV, which is a very important point, but imagine you watched this race with 20 English people in the pub and they are all like: 'Yeah, yeah, Hamilton is leading! He's going to win the race!' Then two laps before the end he ditches into the gravel bed. Imagine this emotion.

"We don't need 150 artificial overtaking manoeuvres. We need hero-to-zero moments, this instant punishment" Alex Wurz

"We don't need 150 artificial overtaking manoeuvres. We need this hero-to-zero moment, this instant punishment, because then you know this guy is only a human being. You see how disappointed he is, and his team. This is an emotion, which is amazing."

It's not just for the fans that would be better off. Wurz is convinced that drivers would relish the extra challenge that comes from knowing one mistake means you are out.

"When we drivers internally discuss it, [we say there should be] an instant punishment, and not electronic power reductions for a few seconds, instant punishment on a track," he says.

"Spa is the best example. You have Pouhon, the double left hander. In the past as a driver you went in there knowing that if you did one centimetre wrong, you were in the gravel bed - your session is finished. The engineer will hate you because you didn't finish his programme, and you will poo your pants because your team-mate is optimising his driving style.

"You earn a lot of respect by not screwing up, and then when you aren't self confident on the day, when maybe there is a little drizzle, you're three seconds off the pace. Then someone, who was full of testosterone, didn't care, instantly [goes off on the] first lap and bang. That would highlight the mood a little bit more and the performance of the drivers, what their mindset is."

Of course, while it sounds simple to roll back the times and get rid of asphalt run-off areas for F1, putting that plan in place is not that straightforward.

Asphalt run off is preferred by most series - and since tracks get more profit from hosting other events rather than F1 (which can even be a loss-leader for some venues), it's obvious redigging gravel beds isn't feasible.

But perhaps the solution is a compromise of adding more grass rather than asphalt run-offs, or clever technical solutions.

The time for redigging gravel beds may be long gone, but perhaps the solution is a compromise of adding more grass rather than asphalt run-offs, or clever technical solutions that can work for both MotoGP and F1.

"We don't need every corner with gravel beds, which also have negative effects from the operating point of view, because they are quite labour intensive and it would be a big bill," Wurz adds.

"Grass is an amazing solution because it always works and it's quite - for the bikes as well - alright. And there will be always some corners where asphalt is better because it's safer."

A super-safe championship, with the fastest cars, driven by the most excited drivers, on the most challenging and extreme tracks where one mistake turns you from hero to zero - that is everything F1 should be.

It would become an unmissable spectacle, even with the halo on board.