Hadjar Wants Cooling Vests Banned: “It’s Supposed to Be Tough”
As the Singapore heat-hazard debate rumbles on, the Red Bull driver plants his flag firmly on the side of discomfort — while teammate Verstappen agrees, for an entirely different reason.
The cooling vest debate resurfaced after the extreme heat and humidity of the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia — and paddock reactions split along the usual predictable line: some want the technology, others want the suffering to stay part of the deal. Isack Hadjar is firmly in the suffering camp.
Hadjar’s position: no compromise
“I think it should be banned. Because it’s supposed to be tough,” the Red Bull driver explained to Motorsport.com and other media in Singapore.
The technology’s logic is simple in theory: liquid is pumped through tubes in a fireproof vest worn under the race suit, cooling the body. In practice, the system works well for a few laps before the liquid in those tubes starts heating up along with the cockpit — turning the promise of comfort into just another complication.
Verstappen agrees, from a different angle
Hadjar’s teammate, four-time champion Max Verstappen, also dismissed the vest — though with a more pragmatic than philosophical argument. “For me it’s not needed. Yes, it’s hot, but it’s not a sauna, and with this cooling vest you have these stupid cables in your car, so it’s just limiting your movement as well.”
Verstappen goes further, questioning the system’s effectiveness outright: “I don’t need it, even if it would work for one and a half hours, like cool, cool, I don’t need it, but it doesn’t work anyway for one and a half hours. I don’t think it has worked for one and a half hours in any category.”
A choice, not a requirement
The rules give drivers and teams an option: when a heat hazard is declared, they can wear their own cooling vest system or carry ballast instead, so there’s no weight disadvantage for those who skip it. Hadjar and Verstappen will likely pick the ballast — though in a sport where every gram carries as much weight as an argument, the choice is probably less simple than it sounds on paper.
