Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrapovic
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.
|
That’s what I said. But then we deviate.
Quote:
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.
|
It is clearly the easiest to get to a workable solution. The others, while potentially better, clearly need more development time.
I’ll be interested to see if those who prefer the other solutions put any further development into them. Or are they all talk.
Of course it would also be good to see the FIA to force further development.
Quote:
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.)
|
Todt, if that is what he is after, could claim that with any solution as F1 didn’t have it and then will. Managing to introduce a windscreen into this formula would just as revolutionary.
Your hypothesis could be true, but there is no evidence. I think the alternative is more likely.
BTW I’m against it and he other solutions. I would prefer the others, but I’d prefer none.