How about onboard voice regonition and LED board on the rearwing so the driver can talk to each other and openly curse? Takes the psychological game to another level.
How about onboard voice regonition and LED board on the rearwing so the driver can talk to each other and openly curse? Takes the psychological game to another level.
I remember seeing some photos of Euro F3 cars with the rear wings virtually completely removed at the Norisring last year, which would make sense seeing as the track consists of either long straights or extremely slow corners, making downforce less important than straight line speed.
Ha ha, yes that was funny. The rules stipulate that the "Series Stickers" which include the race number, sponsors etc must fit on the rear wing endplate.
So what one team did was remove the top plane of the rear wing, cut the endplates in half (i.e. remove the upper half), fit the sticker and fold it over. The sticker fitted, and the rules didn't say the sticker had to be un-creased or visible from one side of the car. So they ran without wings legally, whilst everyone else had to use the lowest downforce settings or something.
I don't really remember the details, or which team it was, but it made me chuckle!
So what one team did was remove the top plane of the rear wing, cut the endplates in half (i.e. remove the upper half), fit the sticker and fold it over. The sticker fitted, and the rules didn't say the sticker had to be un-creased or visible from one side of the car. So they ran without wings legally, whilst everyone else had to use the lowest downforce settings or something.
I don't really remember the details, or which team it was, but it made me chuckle!
Just remove 2 wheels. Problem solved. 
The F1 of tomorrow:
The F1 of tomorrow:
huh and i thought only bernie came up with bad ideas for f1
Can't get this, because if the main element is upside down it produces the same amount of drag. The angle is what matters.
think it was a case that if it was mounted upside down then because of the way the mountings were positioned the wing element in question was masked by another so reducing the actual area that was presented to the wind. the downforce reduction was due to the fact that effectively one element of the wing went missing rather than that element producing lift
I think in Brawn's case, they could very well have relied more on under-body aero than wings, keeping in mind that Ross Brawn was the one who saw the DDD loop-hole first. He might have wanted to exploit it as much as possible. I have noticed that the Toyota cars were very good at close-quarters racing, and they were also one of the "Diffuser Three".
As for Force India, I think they just had an extremely well-balanced chassis design with relatively weak but less-sensitive aero. Sutil's big slide gave me a strong impression that the car was easy to handle on the limit.
http://www.racecar-engineering ... be-in-euro-formula-3.html
Turns out it was ART, it must have helped seeing as Jules Bianchi won the first race and one of their other drivers gained fastest lap.
Is it not that, because it causes "lift", it reduces the friction between the tyres and the track?
Yea then they used it at Macau and it didn't help one bit!
Macau must be a bit of a nightmare, what with half of it being flat out and miles wide and the other half being back alley ways barely wider than the cars.
then we should be allowed to do that in lfs.....
1
2
Back to basics needed for F1?
(38 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG