Halo decision, what is the objection from the FIA to just bringing it in on
CW: The FIA has decided that we would go through the governance procedure as
has been well stated in the past. The first step was yesterday in the
Strategy Group, so that is exactly what we did. The decision was taken, as I
believe you know, that simply because only three drivers have ever tried it,
and they have only done a total of four laps, this was something that
everyone felt was quite a relevant thing and it wouldnít really be feasible
to expect, in the short term, to get the relevant number of laps with the
Halo. That was the reason for introducing if for 2018 instead of 2017.
Was it yesterday an argument that in a worse-case scenario that if we have
an accident that people will not say, Ďwell, the FIA had the Halo but did
not introduce ití? Are you not afraid of this?
CW: It was mentioned, of course. But I think, equally, it would be very
difficult to roll these things out at the beginning of the year and then
find youíve got a fundamental visibility problem. They felt that that was a
real possibility and until it has been tested properly in the right
environment, everyone felt it was best to defer it.
As far as the decision or clarifications that were taken yesterday, we were
talking about the Halo, we were talking about the radio, we were talking
about track limits and talking, possibly I believe, starts in the rain under
safety cars and I believe there was one other you canít work under a red
flag or something. Which of these has to go through the due process and
which can be sorted out in a clarification?
CW: Letís start with radios: thatís always been done under the heading of an
interpretation of Article 27.1 and that is driver aids. What we decided was
that we would be happy to take a more relaxed position on that provided that
the full content of all the conversations was provided to the broadcaster
with the sole intention of making sure spectators and fans get better
content. Then, track limits; it was proposed by some that we should take a
completely relaxed view on track limits but I felt that was inappropriate
and I think we should carry on doing what we do. My principal aim has always
been to get the track to enforce the track limits, if you see what I mean. I
think by and large we have done that, but there are certain corners on
certain tracks that do present us with little problems but we are getting
rid of them one by one. Here we have a similar position to Hungary Ė Turns 4
and 11 in Hungary Ė Turn 1 here appears to be a similar sort of thing, with
93 cars going across there today. So we have to think carefully about what
to do for tomorrow. The difficulty of allowing complete freedom and letting
them go very wide there and no longer taking any notice of it, is that
simply there would be a different track fundamentally and it would be faster
and there would be less run-off area Ė so we couldnít possibly contemplate
it. Safety Car starts, yes it was agreed that that should be done in the
future, but that needs to be a proper rule change that goes through the
process. But everyone seems to agree with that and we had a Sporting Working
Group meeting on Wednesday afternoon in which the team managers also agreed
with that. Red flags: a similar situation, the rules just need to be
changed, but they agreed yesterday and that will have to go through the due
Regarding the Halo, you mentioned that it has not been tested properly in
the right environment, but from the moment we first saw it in pre-season to
the Strategy Group meeting weíve just had, there have been 11 grands prix.
Why was the Halo not run more during practice sessions than the four laps we
saw it over the course of that period of time?
CW: This is something that we had to leave to the teams because we couldnít
at that point feel as though we could actually insist upon trying to put it
on one of the current cars. But there are also problems. If you talk to
anybody from Red Bull, for example, they say they canít run Halo for more
than two laps before the air intakes for the cooling of the engine and
cooling of the gearbox start to be affected. What we are looking to do is
make it clear that every driver has to try it for a whole free practice
session during the course of this year. That would give us a proper way of
going forward, to make sure that we donít get caught out by something that
is very hard to change back. Thatís really the idea.
A Halo that springs out when a danger is present, how technically feasible
is that in your point of view and what type of time frame would we face
CW: Are you talking about a sort of airbag-style deployment of a Halo? Iíve
seen someone has sent me one of these designs, but I think it would be
wholly impractical personally. I canít see how you would deploy it in the
right period of time and the inventor, if we may call him that,
misunderstands because the drivers are not going to see something coming and
think Ďoh, my goodness! I know, Iíll push that buttoní. Honestly, I donít
think thatís feasible, but as you know we have tested extensively with the
Halo and to a slightly lesser extent the Aeroscreen, but we think we are
submitting those things to possibly the worst-case scenario and I think it
is better to continue down that path and not try to do something completely
new that might need another three years of development.
Itís likely that Halo is a structural element of the car, so how would it be
possible to consider to use it on next yearís car if the monocoques of next
yearís car need to be ready by this stage at the end of July?
CW: The Halo is going to be a structural part of the car, yes. Itís going to
be the secondary roll structure which was formally, basically, the front
roll hoop of the car, but I think now the teams have been designing the cars
with Halo in mind but not with complete certainty. Now they have certainty
about next yearís design and they can adapt accordingly. I think there are
some fundamental decisions that need to be made: weight distribution, for
example, would be dependent and wheel base would be dependent on whether or
not the Halo is nine kilos up high and all those sorts of things. They would
all need to be taken into account, so the designers needed some clarity as
well. They know now that they donít have to design for Halo for next year.
Are there any plans to have at least one or two cars run it in Spa because
of the visibility in Eau Rouge, in Singapore at night time, in day and night
in Abu Dhabi and whenever it is raining hard?
CW: We asked the teams yesterday all to look at the possibilities of running
a car in Spa and Monza but that was before the decision was taken to defer
it until 2018. But now I think we should look towards a structured plan
where all teams can run it at some point during the season at all tracks.
But my aim would be to get every driver to try it.
If the plan is for all teams and drivers to run the Halo at some time, are
they going to use a standard version of the Halo or will they all have to
produce it themselves?
CW: It will be a standard version of the Halo. A standard shape, of course,
but dummy versions. They wouldnít be actual production Halos. Theyíve all
got the drawings, they all know exactly how big they have to be and where
they have to mount, but they could make what is effectively a dummy one.
You keep talking about the Halo coming in in 2018; is the intention to
introduce the Halo or is the intention to introduce frontal protection?
CW: At the moment itís Halo, but there will be some form of additional
frontal protection. If, for example, the Aeroscreen can be redesigned to fit
the free head volume Ė which is one of the stumbling blocks at the moment Ė
that might be the way to go. But I think we need to look at visibility
first, because that is the thing that is a little bit of an unknown. So we
really do need to make sure that is not a sort of showstopper. But it really
would be similar between the Halo and the Aeroscreen, I would imagine.
The clarification of radio that weíve got at the moment, does this mean
driver coaching is back on the agenda?
Is that a good thing?
Do you have a long-term view on it?
CW: My view doesnít actually matter, but being serious we have to look back
to when the Strategy Group decided that there was too much radio traffic and
it was detrimental to the sport. We were getting quite a few complaints, if
I remember, from fans saying ĎWhy are they being told all these things? They
should be driving them for themselvesí. In the August of 2014 the Strategy
Group decided that we should cut out nearly all radio conversations. We
issued a note reflecting those views and everyone said ĎOh, itís too much,
itís too muchí. So we scaled it right back and we introduced bits and pieces
and then we went to single clutch paddles and those sorts of things. Now the
feedback is that weíve gone too far and this actually has not been the best
thing and the Commercial Rights Holder feels he can improve the content for
the fans with the radio conversations. This is contingent upon the teams
providing all the content from their discussions with the drivers, because
before they had privacy buttons and they were chopping out great big chunks
of it. So now theyíve got to provide everything to the broadcasters and this
is seen as a way to improve the experience for the fans and spectators.
Charlie, is there no compromise with regards to the radio? As you said,
initially it was cut out to get rid of things like driver coaching, lift and
coast. Surely there must be some compromise solution that can be reached all
CW: There didnít seem to be much stomach for that yesterday. The feeling was
letís keep it absolutely simple and as long as Bernie gets what he wants Ė
the Commercial Rights Holder gets what he wants Ė for the show then I think
weíve done the right thing.
Looking purely at the safety research that has been done into the Halo, is
it 100% proven it has a net safety gain or is there still the need to
analyse for other unintended consequences in maybe other type of accidents
where it can pose a safety risk?
CW: No, I think weíve done a good enough risk assessment. The thing that is
missing is the driver experience.
I think Niki [Lauda] expressed yesterday the concern for what happens if the
car is lying upside down on fire, for obvious reasons. I know itís a very
unlikely scenario nowadays but the Halo protects against very unlikely
scenarios, especially next year when the tyres will be tethered much
stronger than now. So why do you neglect one concern over the other?
CW: Weíre not neglecting it, it has been thought of. Now, for example, if a
car turned over and was on fire I think itís quite unlikely Ö if it has been
in an accident big enough to cause a fire then the driver probably canít get
out by himself anyway. Then the first course of action will be for marshals
to get there and turn the car over and this is the sort of thing you see
quite regularly. So I have always felt that a car being upside down is
always a worry, but the marshals are normally there very quickly and they
would turn it back over. Thatís the way weíve always felt about that
Coming back to the radio if we can Charlie, Christian Horner was just saying
he wants the messages allowed to be broadcast from team managers to you.
Would you be happy for that to go out?
CW: No, I donít think I would. I told him that yesterday, I think we need to
sort this lot out first. We need to sort out all the team radio to the
drivers before even contemplating something like that. We have private
conversations with the teams and I donít think itís rightÖ because the teams
wouldnít feel comfortable about asking us the sort of questions that we get
asked in the race if they knew the rest of the teams could all actually
listen, or anyone could listen in to that. So I think thatís a step too far.
I donít understand how you can differentiate Ė obviously at the start of a
race and the end of a race parc ferme is over and you can do whatever you
want to the cars Ė you are going to suspend that when there is a red flag?
CW: Iím sorry Iím not quite with youÖ
What you said about the red flags is that you might be able to change
whatever you want on the carÖ
CW: Thatís right. Basically the principle is that when we suspend a race it
is normally done after the safety car has been deployed Ė pick the cars up,
then we bring them into the pit lane and we suspend the race, say after a
couple of laps. If the safety car continued the teams would not be able to
work on the car, they wouldnít be able to change the tyres and they wouldnít
be able to do anything unless they came into the pits and suffered this time
penalty concerned. So this is just the same thing. The timing doesnít stop
either, it is a stationary safety car if you like and that is what we want
to try and achieve, to make sure it is exactly the same as leaving the
safety car out, only itís stopped. If you remember in Monaco in 2011, when
we were building up to a great climax in that race with Vettel on very worn
tyres and Jenson and Fernando had pulled right up and it was looking like a
really good end. It was stopped, [they] changed tyres and the race fizzled
out. That is what happened. I have been trying to talk them into it for 5
Like in Australia this season?
CW: Yeah, but it is the same thing of course. They are allowed to change
tyres and work on the car but now if the rule goes through next year we will
not be allowed to work on the car or change tyres.
I believe there was a discussion about double yellows and potentially using
a red flag to neutralise things and stop people improving. Is that correct?
CW: That is correct.
From this weekend?
CW: Yes. Ever since we had the Virtual Safety Car in 2015 and then this year
we use it in free practice Ė well, we can use it in qualifying really but we
tend now to stop if there is going to be a yellow flag for any length of
time. The reason we didnít show a red flag in Hungary was simply that
session had ended but some cars were behind Alonsoís car and some in front,
so I think the procedure would be to red flag it any time there is a double
waved yellow flag. Then there will be no discussion.
Coming back to the Halo, are you happy as the FIA with the result of
yesterday because there were some very good explanations to back it up but
are you happy with that? And if so why did it go to the Strategy Group in
the first place if you accept it wasnít ready for implementation?
CW: I think you misunderstood things slightly. My opinion doesnít matter
when it comes to introducing something like that, it is a complete change of
rules, a lot of rules had to be changed. We prepare the rules. We have done
all of the testing and the only bit the Strategy Group felt was missing
before they could finally confirm it was the drivers donít have any
experience of it. That is the point that they needed before it could be
properly introduced that is it really.
If you are going to red flag a situation like the Alonso one in the last
race, do you leave yourself open to any driver who mucks up sector one on
his final run is going to spin his car and it is going to lead to a lot of
CW: Quite possibly, but I think we would be able to see that happening and I
donít think that is any different to now because it could happen at any
time, couldnít it? If you see what I mean: just a yellow is normally enough
to prevent a driver improving but what we saw in Hungary it wasnít quite
We saw Pierre Gasly trying a Halo during the test with special glasses and
camera mounting. Did you get any pictures from that that would help you with
CW: We got one image from it and if you compare it with an LMP1 car it is
extremely good visibility, but Pierreís comments were that it felt
claustrophobic and the view wasnít very nice. But that is only after two
laps and I think with a lot of these things I would expect drivers to get
completely used to it. But you donít know that for certain, there may be
some hidden problems there. It is the right thing to do to research that
properly. The more drivers can get to do it the better, of course
When it comes to driver feedback, a lot of them said: ĎOh, weíre not
involved in the vote, weíre not involved in having our sayí. Because they
are going to be giving you specific feedback are they going to be more
involved in the process before the Halo is implemented?
CW: We have involved them and tried to involve them anyway, but yes of
course. Their feedback is key to this next stage.
Just stepping back a bit and leaving the Halo to one side, weíve had the
radio thing, which has got increasingly more and more complicated and
difficult for us to follow let alone the public over the last 12 months.
Australia, we had a complicated new qualifying format that was u-turned on
and just looking back at to the last time we were here this race was the
first one since FRIC was banned mid-season. It seems the last few years
there have been quite a lot of this rule u-turn stuff, you having to explain
things, things being complex for fans to follow. Do you regret this, not in
terms of your part in it, but do you regret that we seem to be in the this
situation where we are changing the rules half-way through the year?
CW: I think you can leave FRIC out of it, because that was a technical
regulation and it was something that we felt had to be done at that time.
But if you look at the qualifying procedure, I think everyone realise - I
say everyone; Iím talking about the Strategy Group and the members of the F1
Commission, and they felt that this was a good idea. It didnít work, I think
we can all accept that, and we felt that the most grown-up thing to do would
be to go back. I think that was that, really, with qualifying. It dragged on
a little longer than it could have - sorry, than it need have Ė but there
you go. I think someone asked me yesterday: ĎDo you remember that
qualifying?í I couldnít actually remember what we did in Australia straight
away. These things disappear. I donít feel that the radio thing is a U-turn
as such. It was doneÖ The original things were requested of us for a good
reason, and it kind of worked at the beginning but itís beginning to mean
that the spectators and the fans are not getting quite what they could. I
think that that is why they thought it was a good idea to try and go back to
something that gave them more. I think we have to respond to those sorts of
things; I donít think itís a bad thing at all.
The FIA is presenting the Halo decision as a purely practical issue, but
itís quite clear that some of the people on the Strategy Group had wider
concerns - and more fundamental philosophical concerns - and already thereís
talk about some kind of hybrid solution between Halo and Aeroscreen or what
have you. Bearing that in mind, are you not concerned that youíll get to a
similar sort of position next year and theyíll vote against it again,
presenting it as practical but actually what theyíre doing is they just
donít like it, Bernie as well for example?
CW: Iím not concerned about that because it was clearly adopted for 2018.
There is no question of it being deferred further unless there is a
completely unknown at this point show-stopping thing about it that we donít
Clarity on a couple of bits: The red flag under double-yellows Ė is that
only after weíve seen the chequered flag end the session?
CW: No, no. As you know, weíve been stopping qualifying more than we have
done in the past, if thereís a tractor out and those sorts of things,
especially in qualifying where obviously time is vital, and you donít want
to lose any time, so thatís the reason we do that. It will be done,
routinely, if thereís a double-waved yellow flag.
And on the radios. Are teams still able to hear each other on team radio?
CW: Do you know, Iím not actually sure. Thatís not our deal; thatís what
Bernieís people do. But my feeling is Ė and I expressed this to Bernie
yesterday Ė I think it would be far better if teams canít hear each other. I
think theyíll say more, provide more. But thatís only my humble view.
Charlie, clarification on something you said just now. You said that when
the red flags thingÖ in other words, no work under red flags comes in next
year Ė and I would assume youíre looking at next year for the wet starts as
well Ė how would you manage to achieve that unless you get unanimity,
because weíve passed the cut-off date? And if you can get it ahead of time,
why canít we do it for the five races this year that are going to happen in
CW: Thatís a good point. It will need the unanimous support of all the
teams; Iím expecting that to happen, I think theyíre quite sensible things
to do. But youíre right Ė I suppose that if we did try to rush things along
a little bit, because thereís not that much to do Ė there are a few things
to consider when we talk about having a standing restart. Because you need
to think about race length, for example, and how many laps shorter it is;
what happens if you suspend a race after the start; there are a few things
that need to be thought through carefully so we donít have any own goals.
Weíve got the Halo and weíve got the Aeroscreen. They both seem to be trying
to solve different scenarios and incidents. What scenarios are we trying to
protect the driver from with this process and is there the possibility of
some sort of hybrid Halo-Aeroscreen?
CW: I donít think thereís any possibility at this stage of any hybrid, but
we know that the Halo is being tested with a wheel being thrown at it Ė a
wheel and upright assembly, which is 20kgs Ė at 225 kph, which is a pretty
awesome thing to watch. So the Halo is there principally to look into the
way drivers have been hit by wheels, but also where weíve seen cars in
contact with the environment, so to speak: walls, for example. Campos in
Magny-Cours, Greg Moore in Fontana, was it? Those sorts of things as well.
It can withstand a load 15 times the weight of the car, so thatís twice as
strong as the current roll structure. Itís a very, very strong thing, but of
course when you look at the small objects coming towards it, weíve done a
paper study to theoretically throw over a million angles and different
scenarios, and we conclude that 17 per cent of the time, it will deflect
something from the driver Ė as opposed to none without the Halo. So it stops
17 per cent of these things from hitting the driver, whereas before they
would all hit the driver, if you see what I mean. But the Aeroscreen
obviously offers the screen, which is in addition to the Halo, because it is
like the Halo but with two bits here instead of a bit in the middle, and
itís got theÖ itís called Perspex but itís 10mm thick and that provides more
or less complete protection from the front. But the downsides are that it
gets dirty and needs to be cleaned; rain - weíre not sure what would happen
in the rain, but there are coatings and treatments that can be done; and
those are the sorts of things that have to be developed.
A vertical impact like [Henry] Surteesí orÖ
CW: I think thatís a bit of a myth, because if a carís travelling at great
speed nothingís going to actually drop vertically onto a driver. Thatís the
Weíve had situations in the past where decisions of the stewards of the
meeting Formula One-wise came relatively late because I was told they were
dealing with matters GP2, GP3. Was it never discussed to maybe put Formula
One in front because more fans basically care whether Nico Rosberg is
punished or not, loses his pole or not, than some matter in GP3? Was that
CW: That was going back a long time, when the Formula One stewards also did
GP2. It doesnít any more. GP2 and GP3 are separate from the Formula One
stewards. If youíre referring to the length of time it took to get a
decision on Nicoís flag in Hungary, then that was simplyÖ We looked at it
first off; the stewards said Ďwe think thatís fineí. Then there was lots of
discussion about the 107 per cent. And then we decided to have another look
at it and the stewards felt, after looking at it from a different camera,
that Ďmaybe we do need to have a chat with Nicoí, so we did. They accepted
his explanation, and that was that. I donít see a big issue there,
personally - Iíd rather they be thorough and get it right than not. Than
rush it and get it wrong, thatís really what Iím saying.
The need for the change of the yellow-flag regulations would surely suggest
that the decision reached in Hungary was not the appropriate one if then the
next week itís felt that you need to be clearer on what happens under
CW: It just removes the discussion about how much youíre slowing down. The
stewards accepted Nicoís explanation, and looked at the data and felt that
he had slowed down. But then the question is: ĎDid he slow down enough? What
is enough?í. If you canít set a time, then thatís that. It removes all that
Charlie, to permit again a conversation between teams and drivers through
the radio, is a clear simplification of the rule. Is it an isolated case or
are the Strategy Group and the FIA planning to simplify some other areas of
the regulations, which a necessity for the fans?
CW: Thatís another reason exactly. Wherever we can we will try to simplify
regulations, but you must remember that the reason the regulations appear
complex to some is because the cars are complex and the sport is complex and
whenever we try to write a simple rule, the teams say Ďah, but what about
this, what about thatí and we reply ĎOK, weíll write that iní. The downside
of having it completely simple is that then you donít have complete clarity
and hence the stewards would have to decide on a case by case basis and the
teams would much rather it written down absolutely clearly, but that needs
more words, the rule book gets fatter and thatís what people think leads to
That 17% figure you gave for the Halo seems a bit too low to justify it at
the moment, does it not? Given the Aeroscreen has the potential, if the
other problems are solved, to have 100% protection, doesnít that mean the
Halo is very much an interim small step?
CW: You have to put it into context. It will stop a wheel. It will stop
large objects and it will protect the driver against incursion from another
car, walls, interaction with tyre barriers, all those things. We are only
talking about small objects. One hundred per cent would hit him and this
would reduce the likelihood of that happening. Itís a positive. OK,
Aeroscreen might stop them all, but you have to look at the downsides of
Aeroscreen as well.
Charlie, on the Verstappen-Raikkonen incident in Hungary, particularly the
one down to Turn Two, while he was obviously within the rules to do with
crowding off the track, some of the drivers feel that those moves were too
late and too sudden in the braking zone. I know theyíre going to raise it
with you later, as Iím sure you do too. Whatís your view on that situation?
CW: A lot of people, including the teams concerned, felt that Max had moved
more than once to defend his position, which we donít believe he did.
Thereís no actual rule about moving in the braking zone, although itís a
fairly undesirable thing according to most drivers. Obviously we will
discuss this later. I think it was on the edge of being fair. But I asked
the stewards to look at both incidents during the race and I asked them to
review it again after the race and they felt it was firm but fair. ĎRobust
defenceí I think was the expression they used.
Going back to the yellow flag. Can I ask you about the degree of lobbying
youíve had from the drivers in one direction or another since Sunday night
on the waved double yellows and the severity of the reaction?
CW: None. Iím sure weíll get a little bit of discussion this evening but
Iíve had no lobbying from drivers. Iíve read a few bits and pieces from them
but no, nothing.
And itís coming in from the start of next year?
CW: No it will be with immediate effect. Itís just another way of applying
those same rules.
Just coming back to the Hungary incident with Fernando: with the new
regulations you would have put out red flags, correct?
CW: Thatís what I intend to do in the future, yes. Just to remove any
discussion about whether a driver slowed down or not. I think you would have
noticed that most drivers decided to call it a day; they stopped their
attempt at qualifying. But in Nicoís defence, he had only one yellow sector
to go through and that was a short one, whereas the other drivers had two
yellow sectors to go through, so there is a difference. But I just donít
want to get into these discussions where you need to try and decide whether
a driver has slowed down enough and if you applied the double-waved yellow
flag rule absolutely to the letter, it says you must be prepared to stop and
I think that is a difficulty one to call really and if we just say Ďred
flagíÖ itís a little unfair to those who are in front of Fernando and were
trying to complete a lap, but thatís what happens when a red flag goes out
anytime. I donít know if any of you saw but Pascal Wehrlein was caught out
by the third red flag in Q1. He was about to set a time but the red flag
came out less than a second before he crossed the line, but his time didnít
count and thatís what happens unfortunately when a red flag is shown.
If itís enough just to spin, not to crash, just a spin, donít you fear that
drivers will do this on purpose just to avoid others setting a fast time?
CW: If we had any suspicions that a driver had done it on purpose that would
be quite a serious offence. But Fernando spun, as you know, he was across
the kerb, half on the track, half on the kerb, so it was without any doubt a
double waved yellow flag scenario. So I think it was all done correctly. At
the time you donít know when heís going to get going again. You listen on
the radio but theyíre not saying anything. The team says ĎFernando?í but he
doesnít say anything, so you donít know whatís going to happen, so you have
to wait a little bit. But then all of a sudden heís going. If we knew that
he had stopped, that the engine had stopped, then it would have been a red
flag immediately, but you have to wait a few seconds to find out whatís
going to happen next.
Has there been any discussion about any potential alternative in that
situation. Say the incident is in Sector Two and the guys following, say
they all had a power cutting solution when you came through that sector, so
they are affected the same and they were say credited with their previous
sector best in sector two, they could then go on and finish the lap, or do
people say theyíve lost too much tyre temperature or brake temperature, that
kind of thing.
CW: I should think itís too complicated. This is racing. I think when
thereís a dangerous situation on the track, you need to attend to it. There
could have been marshals there for example, and that would have been a
double waved yellow flag in that second sector. I think if we just saw that
under those circumstances weíre going to in future stop the session and make
sure that the driver and the car can be recovered in complete safety then
thatís what we will do.
Youíre talking about red flags in qualifying, but what about practice and
the race,. Or will there always be a VSC covering that?
CW: Thatís what VSC is for. In free practice that doesnít matter because
itís only free practice for a start and the time isnít so important. Whereas
in qualifyingÖ although they are fixed duration sessions, not fixed end
sessions Ė thatís why we differentiate between the two.
There have been complaints that Halo will affect the purity of formula
racing. Do you think itís acceptable to hold back certain technical
developments, most notably for safety, for the sake of purity?
CW: Purity is a matter of opinion. My opinion doesnít matter. Itís what the
decision-makers think. The reason they deferred the Halo is purely because
the drivers havenít had a good chance to assess what they can see out of the
car with it on Ė thatís fundamentally it. I know that some people have said
they donít like the look of it, but itís never come across as being the
reason for not having Halo, which is I think what you were asking.
I have been reading since a long time complaints from the fans concerning
the start procedures behind the Safety car under the rain. Is there any plan
to rethink this rule?
CW: Well, as far as starting the race because the track is in a bad
condition is concerned, then no. The only thing that weíre thinking of
changing is having a standing re-start when itís safe to have a re-start. It
will always be a matter of opinion. We listen to the drivers. We know that
in Silverstone, for example, all the cars were set up for dry conditions. We
know that the drivers donít like driving on the wet weather tyres, they
donít have such a tread depth and then they start aquaplaning Ė these are
all the things we had to take into account. We know that driving in the wet
is not easy, but it never has been and there is no suggestion that weíre
doing it for any other reason than to try and make sure that the drivers
donít aquaplane. In Silverstone for instance, even the Safety Car was
aquaplaning, thatís not safe, itís as simple as that. If the cars can drive
on full throttle on a straight then that normally is an indication that itís
safe to continue.
Is it your feeling that as the Race Director that some kind of cockpit
defence is inevitable in the long run?
CW: Itís been agreed. Itís going to be adopted in 2018, that was a decision
made yesterday soÖ
I got the impression itís about to get kicked into the long grass, because
they could have just said yesterday.
CW: Absolutely not, not. Itís been adopted for 2018.