I applaud the FIA for releasing this video that explains the thought process, research and details of their HALO device decision. If you listened to our podcast where Grace and I discuss the fan’s need for research data, process and risk assessment in order to understand the scope and reason for deploying the device regardless of its aesthetic impact on the current Formula 1 car.
I did find the risk assessment interesting that all conclusions were net positive in aggregate and there were no negative impact found in their research. It seems to me that all solutions will carry some negative impact and perhaps HALO would but in the specific cases they applied the HALO, perhaps it didn’t reveal the possible negative impacts in those situations.
Is this a case of not knowing what any potential negative impacts could be and not finding out until such a situation is presented when we have the HALO device fitted? No one can account for every imaginable scenario but I’m curious if some more basic scenarios were simply not considered as they were deemed non-HALO specific?
Regardless, this is the type of information they should have been released with the actual statement in order to avoid the deluge of negative impressions. It helped me understand their logic, for sure, but the bigger question is for you…did this re-affirm your commitment to HALO as the right solution or change your mind in disliking the HALO and feeling it is now the right solution? IF it didn’t change your mind, what specifically do you feel the research may have missed to justify the device in 2018?