What’s all this about Visor tear-offs?

I haven’t read every possible view of the visor tea-off issue but I initially found it a little strange given the proximity to safety that this device has.

Presumably the tear-offs were getting frequent in their use and these would flip and fly around in the vortices and lodge themselves in the brake ducts and air intakes of other cars. This would, obviously, cause issues with overheating and other concerns.

On the flip side of that argument, the proposed ban on visor tear-offs prompted a discussion of securing the discarded sheets inside the car which, then became a potential flammable device or fuel for a fire.

It was then proposed that the driver could only use two tear-offs per race but this all seemed incredibly near-sighted to me as vision is paramount and a driver should be able to use as many as they need in order to see clearly.

The FIA have reversed their stance on the issue as one of the mighty trump cards in the trinity of F1 trump cards (safety, cost, sustainability) was used to stop the FIA in their tracks…that being the safety trump card. The FIA’s Charlie Whiting said:

“I have decided, based on discussions with the drivers, they are likely to be put in more danger trying to dispose of tear-offs in the cockpit than they are from a tear-off on the track.

“With this in mind I felt the best thing to do was exercise common sense and ask the drivers to simply keep the amount of visors they use to an absolute minimum, bearing in mind of course that this will vary due to a number of factors.

“Based on this rationale we do not intend to make a report about any driver disposing of a tear-off on the track or in the pitlane.”

It seems logical to me as you wouldn’t want to impair a driver’s vision in any way. Perhaps this all plays into the canopy and other topics to increase safety and reduce the tear-off issue. At this point, are we simply going to create LMP1 cars with canopies and fenders? If so, let’s just watch Le Mans.

Hat Tip: AUTOSPORT