richard_leeds wrote:Surely you mean sprung? It's sods law that when we correct people on the basics we end up typing the opposite of what we meant!
I think this is where I say "Go read the regs sometime, they're not secret you know"![]()
Richard
richard_leeds wrote:Surely you mean sprung? It's sods law that when we correct people on the basics we end up typing the opposite of what we meant!
I think this is where I say "Go read the regs sometime, they're not secret you know"![]()
Richard
Owen.C93 wrote:GrizzleBoy wrote:No pics of the McLaren today? Hrmmm...
Nothing new so no point.
hardingfv32 wrote:Does the fact the duct is sprung or not have significance?
3.15 states that for any part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must be secured to a sprung part of the car. Does this mean then by definition that brake ducks do not provide aerodynamic performance?
So what would prevent the use of an 'on track' adjustable duct system?
Brian
Users browsing this forum: -Tifosi_dude-, k.ko100v, rscsr, tony77g, Yandex [Bot] and 12 guests