Late engine changes ‘very expensive and disruptive’ for Toro Rosso

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Toro Rosso say late changes of engine supplier have put them at a disadvantage in recent seasons.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

IndyCar’s test of its windscreen has prompted scepticism over how seriously F1 tested its similar Shield solution:

It is a much more elegant solution, I could possibly imagine the eventually they may add some sort of hoop around the top edge to help with rigidity, but just from the pictures it appears to have much less noticeable distortion than the effort Ferrari cobbles together and the FIA and Sebastien Vettel dismissed after one lap (like it was just a half-hearted attempt to convince the fans and paddock nay-sayers that the Halo was the only way forward).

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Aqeel!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

65 comments on “Late engine changes ‘very expensive and disruptive’ for Toro Rosso”

  1. Calum Menzies
    10th February 2018, 0:15

    The way the Indy car bodywork molds into their test windscreen is such a small touch, but makes it seem that the windscreen design is a thought out piece of design and custom built for that race car.

    F1’s test windscreen just looks like a cheap aftermarket part from an autoshop, which is generic enough to fit any old car off the shelf.

    1. +1. It’s a small touch but makes a world of difference to the appearance and integration of the windscreen

  2. In reference to COTD, The Shield only did 1 lap because that 1 lap confirmed everything that had been found in the testing of it upto that point. The visual distortion Vettel complained about had been seen on the simulator test’s & that distortion making Vettel feel dizzy/nauseous was also something everyone that tried it on the simulators also complained about.

    The bigger thing that needs to be looked at however is that the shield also failed the impact test, As did the Red Bull aeroscreen & as did this Indycar windscreen. The reason Indycar are continuing with it despite that is that there looking at it from a different angle to the FIA.

    The FIA are looking more at a solution that protect’s against larger objects while Indycar are looking more at something that can deflect smaller pieces of debris.
    To the FIA the screens splitting after a wheel/tyre test at 100mph is a fail, To Indycar it isn’t a fail because there feeling is that a screen won’t ever be faced with that sort of scenario given how effective the wheel tethers tend to be in accidents on ovals.

    It’s simply a different approach due to a different philosophy. The FIA feel large objects are more of a danger so want the toughest solution while Indycar feel smaller objects are a greater risk so are looking at something that can deflect those even if it may not stand up well to an impact with a larger object which they believe it will never face anyway. The Halo will withstand another car sitting on it, The Indycar screen will not.

    1. Incidently a concern that has been raised in the paddock today is that should a car go upside down this screen has enough flex in it that it will likely either split/shatter or be crushed in a way that will make it impossible for a driver to get out if the car stays upside down (And may make extraction more difficult when the cars righted). Not to mention that if it shatters it’s more a risk to the driver.

      1. @gt-racer, Doesn’t sound right to me, polycarbonate (most suitable plastic) is immensely tough and tends in extremis to bend rather than shatter.

        1. Put this windscreen inside of a hinged canopy opening and enclose the the entire Tub. Protection comes from the canopy covering everything and not limited to just that windscreen shape. If were gunna do this then do it right. We will get used to it.

          1. How is any driver going to escape from that without the officials having to cut them out of it Tedbell??

      2. in the paddock


      3. I read a LOT of Indycar news and have not once, from any sources heard anything close to that. You beat the drum about how it failed this ‘test’ but this screen was never submitted for any FIA tests. It does NOT have to be as Indy is not beholden to the FIA in any way. Keep beating the drum of lies and inaccuracies in pursuit of your ‘more death and danger’ agenda. But you are only showing how wrong and out of touch you really are.

    2. Just quickly throw it away after one short lap in one configuration? I agree with the cotd, whatever reasons they had for not sticking with the screen Sebastians “test” was just for show and nothing else.

    3. “In reference to COTD, The Shield only did 1 lap because that 1 lap confirmed everything that had been found in the testing of it upto that point. The visual distortion Vettel complained about had been seen on the simulator test’s & that distortion making Vettel feel dizzy/nauseous was also something everyone that tried it on the simulators also complained about.”

      This begs the question of why Ferrari stuck with such a shoddy design up to that point if indeed that is the design they had been working with. You would think they would have tested a better design with less distortion instead.

      1. +1 Victor. I’ve been extremely impressed with the lack of distortion with the Indy solution. The on-board camera footage at night was amazing; there was basically no discontinuity between the windshield and open air, as could be seen by watching the passing lights, railing, etc. From a spectator’s viewpoint it was really easy to see into the cockpit, almost as though there wasn’t 1/2″ of plastic there. This is a good basis for continued development. I totally agree with you; the halo was a done deal no matter what and the ‘test’ was simply an excuse to stop considering the ‘shield’.

        Personal note: Want to try dizzy, wear my glasses; you won’t be able to walk!

        1. Can’t edit, so a little add-on. I’m not really understanding why some people are so vehemently opposed to another solution than the halo. Why not encourage alternative development? If it doesn’t work then okay, but the rabid opposition to the Indy windshield is weird. Are people offended that it wasn’t invented here? The Indy people seem to be approaching the project in the right way, testing and probably modifying then testing again. Still amazed by the clarity and lack of distortion; Ferrari could have tried better.

          1. The cockpit protection from FIA and Indy are aimed to different goals, no one is opposing one or the other, they are simply different and address different problems according to the series they will be used in.

            The indy one does look better but it seems it wouldn’t perform in the scenario drawn by FIA. And the halo wouldn’t suit the needs of indy.

            Not a competition

          2. @SteveR No offence, but the clarity and lack of distortion is still undetermined in real racing situations. One car, no traffic, no dirt or oil on it, no marbles hitting it, no layers of tearoffs on it. What about a car with a slightly flat spotted tire that is now vibrating? We hear all the time of drivers being unable to see after a flat spot, due to vibration…now throw a dirty aeroscreen in front of them. And then there’s what I think would be massive aero implications for F1 that aren’t nearly the same issue for Indycar. And there’s the reality that Indycar has less stringent strength requirements than F1.

            So from my standpoint I am not for or against either solution. I’d be absolutely fine with an F1 aeroscreen vs a halo. Frankly I would prefer neither. My main issue surrounding this subject is the continuous rhetoric that runs down F1 to the level of high school kids, like they are just a bunch of amateurs that can’t figure something out that seems such a no-brainer from people’s armchairs. I am offended on F1’s behalf at how little credit they are being given surrounding trying to protect their drivers better, in the most feasible way possible that makes sense from ALL aspects…aesthetics, strength, visibility, aero, costs.

      2. The screen can be tested for its distortion in the simulator? That seems like it wouldn’t necessarily be accurate. What about rain? I think for that, they need to do it for real.

        1. Ferrari says that the track testing verified the distortion they found in the simulator tests.

          Indycar says the track test had minimal distortion like on the simulator tests.

          Apparently the simulator is not the worst indicator of the level of optical distortion. This once again brings it back to the issue of whether Ferrari had some alternative design that didn’t have as much distortion in the simulator and if so, why they didn’t track test it also.

        2. You can mount it on the simulator, it is not a virtual thing. That is how you test the distortion

        3. They do, but a screen with too much distortion in the dry can safely assumed to also have too much distortion in rain.

        4. I would have thought distortion, or rather minimising it, was one of the primary requirements of a toughened windscreen. If the claim the track test confirmed tests done on a simulator or laboratory, then it sounds like that one Vettel tested was the best one. Presumably the money ran out to develop “the Shield” further. A toughened windscreen of some sort seems better to me than Halo, but at least there is something there to protect drivers.

      3. I’ll keep maintaining until I hear otherwise that if they (Ferrari) had employed more of an Indycar type design that could do what the halo can do, they’d be getting no air into the airbox, and that’s just the start of the problems. I really see no reason whatsoever to assume this is some ‘shoddy’ design, like they used high school shop kids to build and install it or something. Come on this is F1 and this is Ferrari…there HAS to be reasons that aren’t political, that the halo has prevailed. Many seem to prefer the aesthetics of the aeroscreen, so I see no political reason that the halo is the ‘winner’ between the two.

        I also see no reason why a single lap each from both SV and DR must be an indication that they just don’t care to try, again like this is high school or something, and it’s ho hum let’s go to these lengths just to placate some folks and then we can move on to the halo that everyone oh so loves. Rather why doesn’t it make more sense that 1 lap is all it took, from two different versions on two different teams and two different drivers, to confirm for them that there’s problems. I’m thinking overheating for one.

        Actually I’d bet this isn’t the first era that has studied an aeroscreen and felt the results aerodynamically of such a device, and that from experiences well before the last 3 or 4 years they already knew what to expect. The only thing different now would be the strides they’ve made in materials to use to suit a much more stringent requirement for performance than would have ever even been considered 20 or more years ago. But strength is only one component to this.

        1. @robbie They didnt state cooling as an issue and one lap in one configuration is clearly not enough data for anything they are intending to actually develop. I dont know why anyone would go the lengths to do this but it speaks for itself, no engineer was involved in this decision.

          1. @rethla ‘No engineer was involved in the decision.’ I’m sure many team members had and have input as to the pros and cons of the aeroscreen. As I search for more info there seems little forthcoming other than talk of aesthetics as the predominant concern. They haven’t stated many of the concerns, and I think that is because there are too many to list, as they confirmed for themselves in one lap both by Ferrari and RBR.

            The halo even caused overheating and as the video on the halo revealed, the teams will be using farings around their halos to deal with the change to the aerodynamics. And that’s just a couple of bars over the drivers heads. How can a big screen in front of them not drastically change the performance of a car not built from the ground up with an aeroscreen meant to be incorporated? Why would RBR Max themselves out on spending, presumably because to them the halo was unacceptable, and then just run it for one lap? Wouldn’t they be motivated after all that effort to prove theirs was the better solution? Why did Mercedes make their first effort a halo, not an aeroscreen?

          2. @robbie The cars are already designed to have as much of the airflow as possible pass over the driver so i cant imagine it being a big problem.

            Thats alot of speculation but one thing is for sure. One lap is not a test that gives any meaningful data.

          3. @rethla One lap was all SV could take. And they have data from simulators. What they have been able to actually run for more than one lap at a time is the halo.

            Also, yes it is a lot of speculation but it makes sense, no? I think you are oversimplifying to say ‘as much of the airflow as possible pass over the driver.’ You yourself know it is meant to go into the airbox for the pu, and around it and to hit the rear wing, scientifically designed in a wind tunnel to do that, exactly as they need. Even just look at the subtle little things on the drivers’ helmets to help do this. And then tell me putting 2 or 3 square feet of material in front of that doesn’t change anything. Let’s ponder why Mercedes effort a few years back was a halo concept not a windscreen.

          4. @robbie Yes it will change things but if anything that screen seems like it would help them getting rid of the problematic cockpit area, i dont understand your reasoning.

          5. @rethla I don’t understand what ‘getting rid of the problematic cockpit area’ means, and I don’t know what more I can say in terms of my opinion on the matter. I think I’ve explained my opinion several ways so I’ll just leave it at that. I’ll leave it at the fact that there will be halos on the cars this season and I totally get why it is halos and not aeroscreens that have only failed the tests that halos have passed, with no questions of visibility nor cleanliness, overheating of the drivers, nor strength or flex, nor aero problems that can’t be dealt with from the use of farings. Those are the facts we know about halos, as they have answered all the questions that remain outstanding yet for windscreens.

      4. @mrmuffins It was a last-minute attempt to stop Halo from being mandated – on the off-chance that the simulator results had not been replicated on-track, it is possible that there would have been a further delay and a switching to Screen as a better long-term solution (there doesn’t seem to be much confidence of Halo being anything other than short-term).

    4. Red Bull had an aeroscreen too. They had confidence in it and only stopped development when FIA announced it would mandate the HALO regardless, so any further development became futile.

      The HALO may be stronger anyway. And TBH, RB’s aeroscreen was not that much of a looker. Yet, the FIA did not give it a real chance.

      1. Bart, the reports at the time indicated the opposite situation – that Red Bull stopped developing the screen because a mock up failed a simulated crash test, resulting in the FIA mandating the Halo because it was the only device which did meet their requirements.

        1. At the 21th of June 2016 this was reported:

          ‘The Aeroscreen ran briefly on Daniel Ricciardo’s car at the Russian Grand Prix and it drew positive support from fans and F1 figures who believed it looked better than the Halo.

          But amid questions that were prompted after crash tests, and an issue with the upper rim potentially being in an area that could be struck by a drivers’ head in the event of an incident, it was felt that introducing it for 2017 would be too risky.

          F1 teams agreed at the Monaco Grand Prix therefore that the Halo idea would be the one pursued for now, with confirmation of its introduction for next year expected around the time of the British Grand Prix.

          Christian Horner said: “At the moment we have suspended all our work on the Aeroscreen because we are awaiting a direction officially from the FIA. They have all the info.

          “We don’t have the resource nor capacity to continue the development on it. Plus somebody also has to pay for it.” ‘
          So in effect the teams (no doubt guided by the FIA) decided to have the HALO, and that decision killed off the screen. The mockup failing the tests meant the screen needed to be developed further to meet requirements, but that route was cut off by the teams.

    5. The Halo will withstand another car sitting on it

      Actually it will withstand a double decker London bus.

      1. It will withstand a double-decker bus at 1 G or another car sitting on it having impacted at just under 20 G. Both are useful statistics to know.

    6. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      10th February 2018, 10:58

      A lot of stats thrown around here but can anyone point me in the direction of exactly what this aeroscreen can withstand force wise? Above someone states this fails the tyre test @100mph but is that fact? Also because the screen splits doesn’t mean the driver is struck in the head which is the ultimate purpose of this. At the end of the day this is a safety improvement over the current situation which is “zero” head protection. F1 seem to have gone overkill, I’ve never even seen a double decker bus during races? Joking aside maybe this would have been enough to save Jules, in which case brilliant but that was a freak accident. That aeroscreen looks pretty substantial to me when you see the width of it, it deflects all debris too. I’m surprised people are even referencing the Ferrari screen, that was a flawed distorted design than can only have been deliberate. Engineers aren’t stupid enough to not take refraction into account when designing a visor.

      1. @rdotquestionmark The person above stated a hypothesis, namely that if a screen had split at the hypothetical 100 mph, it would be regarded differently by Indycar and the FIA. I don’t think anyone has published anything about the capabilities of any of the proposed racing screens, though we can assume from what’s been said about Halo testing that it doesn’t adequetely protect against tyre. Whether that was because the device broke in some way or because the wheel was nonetheless not reliably deflected is something I could not say.

        I’ve never seen a double-decker bus in F1, but I have seen cars travelling at a substantial number of G. The G-force put on a car multiplies its weight (without changing its mass). It is useful to know that Halo will still work if a car lands on it, as this is something we can occasionally expect when cars launch off each other (and even more occasionally when a car, following such a launch, lands on a previously uninvolved car, which last happened in F1 with Grosjean hitting Alonso’s car after launching off another car).

        Even the FIA does not believe that the Halo (or any other technofix currently available to it) would have helped Jules.

        I think the Ferrari screen was rushed because they had to manufacture it at short notice, from a design that was still under development, for psuedopolitical reasons.

        1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
          10th February 2018, 16:08

          Okay thanks @alianora-la-canta. The very first comment states the Red Bull screen failed the impact test as did this Indy one, just wondering where that came from? Sounds made up. I wasn’t serious about the double decker bus btw.

          1. The claims of the Indy screen failing anything for the FIA is complete and utter TRIPE. It has not, and likely will not, be submitted to the FIA as Indycar has ZERO, nothing and NADA to do with the FIA. They are sanctioned by an entirely different group.

            As for the tests, they have multiple times said it met and exceeded all of their demands for the canopy. Which supposedly included all ways of cockpit intrusion that have injured drivers in the past 20 years. So not sure what tests it has failed. Other than the fake macho I watch racing for the danger test. And thankfully Indycar has told those Luddites to move on and go watch MMA like the immature children they are.

          2. @rdotquestionmark I’m a little confused about why you’re asking me to source a statement that I’ve already stated wasn’t said. FIA said the screen concept failed (in that they could not get any concept they thought of to pass their tests), but of course they could not have tested the version Indycar is using as it didn’t exist at the time the results were collated, unless they happened upon the same design by sheer coincidence.

            The quotation from @gt-racer (which is the nearest thing I can see to what you are saying) was:

            To the FIA the screens splitting after a wheel/tyre test at 100mph is a fail, To Indycar it isn’t a fail because there feeling is that a screen won’t ever be faced with that sort of scenario given how effective the wheel tethers tend to be in accidents on ovals.

            It’s simply a different approach due to a different philosophy.

          3. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
            12th February 2018, 21:25

            Wrong quote @alianora-la-canta

            “The bigger thing that needs to be looked at however is that the shield also failed the impact test, As did the Red Bull aeroscreen & as did this Indycar windscreen. The reason Indycar are continuing with it despite that is that there looking at it from a different angle to the FIA.”

            Don’t worry about it!

  3. Give that Indycar a shark fin and you would have the perfect retro racer.

  4. There is nothing worse than a hypocrite… be for or against grid girls, and for the most part I can respect your opinions. But what formulaE did proves that this isn’t about injustices, but rather PR.

    Massive slimeball move formulaE.

    1. The U-turn was worse than sticking to what it was doing before could have been – and telling F1 off for being slow to abandon a position FE was about to adopt makes the whole thing even more embarrassing.

    2. +1

      Absolutely unbelievable, opportunistic and self rightious hypocrisy regarding this issue…

  5. Kitto toberu sa, on Honda power!

  6. Good to see an increased number LMP1 cars on the grid for WEC this year, but given how prolific LMP2 is around the world in other championships (ALMS, IMSA), it seems a bit strange to have such a meagre number of LMP2 entries in what IS the ‘premiere’ championship.

    1. The other championships are supposed to be a step below WEC in the FIA’s reckoning; WEC is meant to have a strong LMP1 field (the class that is meant to be the premier one in prototypes), with those other series you mentioned being the main tier for LMP2 (the second-level, cheaper class).

      1. Yep, ELMS has a large LMP2 field so no need to cannabaile LMP1 & GTE entries in WEC for more LMP2’s.

    2. What’s even more hilarious is the teams in LMP1 other than Toyota haven’t even gotten a car at their shop yet. And only one has emerged with a chassis as of yet. The FIA had a golden goose and just like previous sportscar FIA series, they can’t resist meddling to make it ‘better’ and they have all failed spectacularly.

      LMP2 is the dream child of the ACO, the gentleman’s class of prototype racing. And now that the rules were written so poorly, and one chassis builder was allowed to write the rules, the ACO has almost abandoned their baby in pursuit of LMP1 privateer cars that have yet to emerge. As with last year, there is a HUGE chance an LMP2 will win LM this year. Toyota are cursed and can’t get out of their own way, and the LMP1 privateers aren’t going to be tested enough before June to make it 24 hours.

  7. “Children lost work when we stopped them going up chimneys. But when pundits lament unemployment due to social progress, you can be sure it is the progress rather than the job losses they are really mourning.”

    Such an asinine comment. Making the totally baseless comparison of children up chimneys to grid girls for some primitive political gripe.

    1. @balue Please could you explain in what sense the comparison is baseless? I’m not sure I understand, but believe you may have be onto a good point.

      1. @alianora-la-canta, looking more closely at what the writer of that piece was saying, it seems that it was a piece of sarcastic hyperbole that he threw in that has been plucked out of context and was probably made with the intent of mocking some of the more hyperbolic comments that some fans have been making about the idea of grid kids (I have seen some posters on other sites accusing Liberty of “child labour”, or of “prostituting kids” and appealing to paedophiles – comments that make the jibe in that Financial Times piece look rather tame by comparison).

      2. @alianora-la-canta If you are unable to see the difference between child labour and an adult doing a glamorous afternoon gig, there’s nothing I can say that will make a difference.

        1. @balue The writer explained what their base is. If you cannot explain the basis of your counter-argument, then on the basis of logic, then the original argument would have to stand.

  8. “Children lost work when we stopped them going up chimneys”

    This has to be the most puerile statement made on this matter so far. Children had NO choice in whether they scuttled up and down chimneys or not. But the same cannot be said of grid girls; majority of who are educated and hold down professional jobs.

    And Liberty’s statement about criticism shows the decision had nothing to do with their “vision for the sport” as Sean Bratches claimed.

    Of all the things to talk about when the new season launches, this is the one that will dominate the the airwaves. This episode is simply an embarrassment all round.

    1. Mickey's Miniature Grandpa
      10th February 2018, 13:42

      If Liberty Media follows up by dropping cheerleaders from its Atlanta Braves baseball team we’ll know it was sincere in its claims that its motivation for dropping grid girls was that the practice “does not resonate with our brand values and clearly is at odds with modern-day societal norms”.

      If not, #pantsonfire

      1. Well not entirely. When you read Chase Carey’s quotes it came down to enough complaints they had been hearing from fans as the motivation for their decision. He also says there will still be pretty girls around and glamour and mystique in F1. He acknowledges that grid girls enjoyed doing it and in many cases are professionals themselves.

        With respect to the Atlanta Braves cheerleaders, well I guess if there were enough complaints they’d look at it, but I wonder if the difference is that the women are actually doing a paid season long job, stirring up the crowd to get some noise out of them, no doubt doing charitable events galore, and aren’t just doing something mundane like holding a sign that could have a base and hold itself. They aren’t in skimpy outfits (not that grid girls always were either) and keep in mind too cheerleading in general has many many males involved throughout high schools and colleges in the US, so there may not be some big stigma to it that might seem obvious superficially to some as exploitation of women.

        1. @robbie The Atlanta Braves cheer team does indeed do charity work. It’s also hireable for other events in the area, so offers a line of profit for the team. Grid girls could never have offered that to Liberty because they are only hired for the races in which they partake; they were never full-time employees who could directly earn money for F1 between races.

      2. Not sure that works as 1) baseball doesn’t have such things and 2) Liberty’s hands on involvement with the Braves died when they realize no one in Atlanta actually gives a rats hindquarters about baseball unless they are winning and even then not so much.

        And Liberty is def exploiting all of the cute girl around sports stereo types with the one thing they have made work for the Braves, the consumer center that is the Battery next to the stadium. It’s the WORST kind of fake town center feel of all national or franchised businesses with nothing to do with the actual team or event. It’s a place to be seen and show off.

    2. You really don’t know the average life of a model, do you? You mustn’t, if you think that that much choice.

    3. The ending of child chimney sweeps (in stages across the 19th century) was highly controversial – certainly in Britain – even though we in 2018 sometimes have trouble understanding what was so difficult about banning it (given that a mechanical sweeper was invented in 1802 for small chimneys). Large swathes of working-class families depended on child labour of many different kinds to put food on the table. Many middle/upper-class people thought it was perfectly ethical due to the backdrop of other forms of child labour that were common for the working class, or else didn’t care as they did not see any particular link to their own concerns.

      Standards can and do change across years and generations; this is part of the point the writer was trying to make. There is always a variety of opinions on controversial subjects. I would not like to guarantee that in 2318, all the arguments that are being made about this topic are going to make sense to readers of that time (even though they make perfect sense to each of us who is making it). The part of the article where the writer made the analogy makes some sense for that analogy, even though the types of work under discussion are themselves quite different (and are controversial for quite different reasons).

  9. “Children lost work when we stopped them going up chimneys. But when pundits lament unemployment due to social progress, you can be sure it is the progress rather than the job losses they are really mourning.”
    That was brilliant.

  10. I thought Lewis got to keep his race cars from championship wins in his last contract? Or was that something he wanted to put in his new contract just like Seb?

  11. @keithcollantine thanks for my second comment of the day.
    It’s an honor to have my comments deemed relevant enough to be shared with whole of the F1F community.

    Keep up the amazing work.

  12. I can’t believe the ft article being so totally out of touch with reality. Is it really making a comparison of children working cleaning chimneys and grid girls being somehow comparable things? I mean how out of touch with reality can you be? The work the children cleaning the chimneys was absolutely brutal and lethal hard work. It was child slavery and it was absolutely horrible:

    Meanwhile the grid girls are paid good wages and can do the job or quit totally on their own terms. The two have absolutely nothing in common. It is like comparing being hurt by naughty post in twitter to the sufferings of the people during holocaust. Sure the grid girls sometimes have to deal with negative stuff (find me a job where there are no negatives) but the kids had their lives ruined, were worked and beaten mercilessly, had bones and their bodies disfigured only to later die from painful cancers when they grow adults.

    But they are both victims of the society? I don’t think there is any kind of comparison at all. Not only is the quote in very bad taste but it is incredibly offensive towards all those children who died a painful death. Unbelievable.

    1. @socksolid As far as I can tell, the comparison was used because the observed reaction of some to social progress is the same, not because the jobs that are disappearing are the same or because the same/similar amount of social progress is being alleged.

Comments are closed.