I tend to agree. I hold open the possibility for the use of small winglets for fine tuning balance, but not for generating gross downforce.Andres125sx wrote:Don´t see it mindblowing, as this theoretical exercises should look like IMO
IMHO future is wingless. Wings are sinonim of drag and turbulence, and that´s not good for the show or the eficiency hype they´re trying to sell now
That just looks like they put a current Williams in the oven for a bit too long...toraabe wrote:Well Here we go again .. http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/bild ... 38293.html
Jolle wrote:That just looks like they put a current Williams in the oven for a bit too long...toraabe wrote:Well Here we go again .. http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/bild ... 38293.html
So what you're saying is that when Williams made it wide and low and gave it big rear tires it sucks, but when you suggest doing it, it's great?mertol wrote:I could design a better looking car than that. Just make it very wide and low and give it huge rear tires you can't go wrong. The rest is just details.
Exactly. I mean, you're both right: it's a lot like the current Williams in many ways, only cooler.Moose wrote:So what you're saying is that when Williams made it wide and low and gave it big rear tires it sucks, but when you suggest doing it, it's great?mertol wrote:I could design a better looking car than that. Just make it very wide and low and give it huge rear tires you can't go wrong. The rest is just details.
That was the first year of the bodykit they will improve it.rich1701 wrote:I don't know why these concepts insist on enclosing the wheels in body work. It may be aero efficient but it certainly isn't safe as Justin Wilson's accident showed.
Wasn't it the nose cone?rich1701 wrote:I don't know why these concepts insist on enclosing the wheels in body work. It may be aero efficient but it certainly isn't safe as Justin Wilson's accident showed.
