2016 Spanish Grand Prix - An Exciting Parade

The two Mercedes cars crashed out on the first lap and Max Verstappen won the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix to become the youngest Formula One Grand Prix winner of all time.  Now, I was never convinced Max had shown himself to be that quick, and I didn't think he was mature enough to handle the pressure of a full Grand Prix near the front -- but I was wrong: he was the star of the race.  With Max's surprise win and the Mercedes crashing out we had many, maybe even most, people exclaiming what a great and exciting race it was.

But was it really?

In terms of on-track action what did we have?  Not much.

If we look at the top five positions, how many on-track passes did we have?  Three, for the entire race.

On lap 8 Sebastian Vettel passed Carlos Sainz, who had qualified well and had benefited from a good start and the slight chaos on the first lap.

On lap 14 Daniel Ricciardo passed Romain Grosjean, who was running second because almost everyone ahead of him had already pitted, and he had not.  He pitted one lap later.

Then on lap 15, Kimi Raikkonen, running 6th, passed Esteban Gutierrez for 5th, who like his Haas teammate Grosjean, had not pitted yet.

That was it.  Not another on-track pass in the top 5 for the entire race.  And two of three we did have were due to slower guys being in front because they had not yet pitted.

If we extend this to the top ten, it's not much better.  Sergio Perez passed the Manor of Rio Haryanto, who had not yet pitted, on lap 13.    On lap 37 Felipe Massa, who had qualified poorly and was making his way up the field, passed Fernando Alonso.  Then he passed Alonso's teammate, Jenson Button, on lap 44.  Then Massa passed Daniil Kvyat on lap 56.  Kvyat pitted a lap later for fresh tires.

Perez's pass on Haryanto was the only one in positions 6 to 10 not involving Massa or Gutierrez
Credit: Sahara Force India

Gutierrez was Massa's next victim, on lap 56, then Gutierrez was passed by Button on lap 61, just after they had been lapped by the leader.   To finish off the passing, Gutierrez was then passed by Kvyat on lap 62.

So in the rest of the top 10 we essentially had a Force India passing a Manor, Massa working his way up the field, and Gutierrez falling on tires that were older than the guys around him.

Now while there were some close battles and some good passing attempts, we had a situation where guys on fresher tires using DRS were unable to pass slower cars ahead of them.  Close driving is often great, but I think we would all like to see more passing.  It is not fun knowing, despite a close battle, that the standings will not change unless someone makes a pit stop.

Though Max and the Mercedes made it exciting, it was more of an exciting parade, rather than an exciting race.

Halo

Today is the 34th anniversary of the death of Gilles Villeneuve, and appropriately one of the recent talking points in Formula 1 has been the new "halo" or visor systems to protect drivers.

It would seem the world is split on whether F1 should implement these, or any other system to protect driver's heads.   One half thinks it is necessary and want it, and the other half thinks it is unnecessary and don't want it.  This includes the drivers.

The Red Bull visor. © Red Bull Media House

It's not that there is anyone who does not want drivers to be protected, but if we think back to the recent incidents in F1, in how many of them would it have made a difference?  Would it have protected Fernando Alonso any more than he was at Australia this year?  Unlikely.  Would it have helped Jules Bianchi in Japan a couple of seasons ago?  Likely not.  Would it have helped Felipe Massa with his incident in Hungary in 2009?  The Red Bull visor system?  Likely.  And halo?  Well, who knows whether it would have helped, or how it would have deflected the object?  Saying that, how would an object deflect off the visor and where would it go? 

Would either option have helped the three marshals that have died at F1 races in the last 20 years? Definitely not.

If we think back to Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger, would it have helped them?  Senna, who knows? Ratzenberger, probably not.  We're now going back over 20 years to find an incident in which these systems may have helped.

People mainly mention the deaths of Henry Surtees in Formula 2, and Justin Wilson in Indycar, as examples where these systems would have saved drivers.  Though I don't know how implementing a safety feature in F1 will help drivers in other series.

Clearly the biggest dangers to drivers, and fans too, are bouncing wheels and flying debris.  In F1 the wheel tethers have done wonders to reduce flying tires, and these visor systems certainly help the driver from being hit by them, but they just deflect the tire elsewhere, perhaps somewhere people are less protected.  And they certainly don't do anything to help the fans from tires and debris.  You know, the people not being paid to risk their lives.  (The real biggest danger to drivers are oval tracks, but we don't need to worry about that in F1.  Check out my youtube blog on ovals here:  https://youtu.be/LVkyxkLbpD0 )   Something to help keep the tires contained would be even better.

And that leads to what Martin Brundle asked at the Russian Grand Prix.  Brundle asked it clearly and correctly:  Where does it stop?  If we want to eliminate the danger, then why not go with fully closed cockpits?  And why not have closed wheels, since that would both prevent cars getting airborne like Alonso's did, and would help protect the fans and marshals from both flying wheels and cars.  Where do you stop?  Why not turn F1 racing into sports car racing?

It is impossible to make a sport completely safe where objects are travelling at 200 miles per hour.  The question is: are the "halo"/visor systems a necessary step in protecting drivers?  Or, is it an unnecessary notion that starts F1 down the slippery slope of changing its very essence and does little to protect drivers, and nothing to protect fans and marshals?