We all know the halo is in reality, simply a roll cage. Nothing new. F1 didn't invent anything. It just HAD to make it "different" in order to come across as if something new has occurred, when in reality nothing new has been created.
I'm for a canopy solution with a simple roll bar (ala a P-51 cockpit). I don't feel like arguing why that is superior in my opinion, but I will argue the following point:
The halo is innately a flawed concept. Not because it makes it harder for a driver to get out, not because it might cause vision problems at Eau Rouge (I predicted that when it was first shown). No, it's flawed because it has been sold on protecting the driver from one particular instance:
A loose tire hitting the driver.
The problem here isn't just that this hasn't happened in F1 so far, it's that if we are that concerned about tires flying around -
Nothing has been said about doubling the wheel tethers. Would that be that big of a deal? How about instant deflation when a wheel gets detached, so it doesn't bounce? "Crazy Chip ideas", right?
Sorry, I don't think so. Not in Formula 1. They could do that over night. I think this is an example of bureaucracy hiding the real issue (lawsuits) while not wanting to address the root cause. I want the drivers to be even more safe - with a canopy, so things like what happened to Rubens doesn't occur again. But I find it INSANE that The Powers That Be are going to argue that the halo has to be there to protect drivers from loose wheels, when in reality you'd better be thinking about where else a wheel can go.
