You really are narcissistic. You said earlier how people aren't trying to "fix" the issue and rather "argue and defend their side"..isn't that required in order to provide a fix to something that has various ideas? Moreover, having a canopy would STILL pose a risk -- no matter what you do to an automobile, you're still going to have dangers involved, whether they be new or old, less or more common. It would provide a remedy to many of the safety concerns that people have talked about.I guess you didn't read any of my comments. I don't mind sourcing all of my material and I merely echo the concerns of people who have paid millions to test out your simple "oh just do a canopy" comment, but I think that'd be a little silly since the problems are rather obvious. If you don't want to accept that there are problems and there are ways around them then fine. I bothered to use my brain and do some research. "Hey! CANOPY!" is not using someone's brain nor does it come from research. "Hey! CANOPY! Here are the problems and here are solutions other have come up with!" is.
So you said "Hey! CANOPY!" with an anecdote about hydroplanes. Guess what? You left out the important part of canopies being a safety concern AND you left out the important part about how hydroplanes successfully worked around those concerns. I called you out and you're not happy. Get over it. I did your research for you. I even linked you to an article about why canopies in hydroplanes work -- something you said but you didn't provide any basis for other than "it works."
Rather than a canopy..how about set minimum DF settings that maintan a safe level of DF on ovals (would differ from track to track).