Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam43
Ah, but the cynic doesn’t define what is true. This is perhaps even more true for those that substitute cynicism for rationalism. To be fair the former is easier hence is more common. Although sometimes they end up at the same place.
At the moment, the halo is probably the best solution. Will it end up being the best solution? I don’t think it will, but when someone comes up with a complete alternative then we can replace it.
|
But if we're going down the route of what is "true", then it's equally untrue to suggest the halo is the best solution. It's the only solution which has had a reasonable amount of development. That doesn't make it the best, it makes it the only one they've put money and time behind.
So then it becomes - why is it the only one they've backed? Given the obvious short falls of it compared to other proposals, it suggests it's political or financial. Since F1 never does the anything save a couple of quid, I'd say it's political.
Mr Todt wants his prize for safety. You don't get that prize by taking solutions other people have made. Windscreens are just that - solutions other people designed and developed. These were discounted for nonsensical reasons, just so they could go back to the halo. That means the FIA gets to wave a flag and say "Look at how smart we are! We made this brand new thing. Prize please!". They are determined to be original, not find the best solution for driver safety.
(F1 isn't the only series guilty of it. ACO hates to swallow their pride and admit they are wrong. IMSA likes to use someone elses product with new stickers, then talk about how amazing the new product is. They're all at it.)