Quote:
Originally Posted by Greem
I just went through my posts in this thread. I changed my mind and I'm not too proud to detail how:
- I started convinced a canopy was the only real solution.
- I thought the halo concept looked stupid.
- I thought it was the right answer to the wrong question, or the wrong answer to the right question, without really understanding what the question was.
- I was concerned about it not preventing small object incursions (springs etc), but soon realised that it wasn't aiming to be a 100% answer to every question.
- I was concerned about blind spots and visibility.
and then
- I was impressed by cars bouncing over it.
- I am convinced we've just seen a life saved by it.
So yeah, it is possible, with evidence, to change one's opinion. I know I have. |
To my mind - the effects of the halo have shown why you shouldn't solve the last problem in isolation.
During the 'surge' in clamor for a canopy or similar to be introduced, many cited Massa's incident as the reason. The adoption of the halo, along with the ballistic tests that helmets are subjected to, look to be the best compromise at the moment between preventing injury from external objects, shielding the driver and post-incident extraction.
With that in mind, I feel the FIA have got it absolutely right.