And by a pretty large amount it seems, maybe around 8 degrees? It seems a lot as it must be paralel to the reference plane, which it obviously is not
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Team: Tim Goss (Director of Engineering), Paddy Lowe (TD), Neil Oatley (DRD), Martin Whitmarsh (TP), Jonathan Neale (MD), Sam Michael (SD)
Drivers: Jenson Button (3), Lewis Hamilton (4)
Team name: Vodafone McLaren Mercedes
And by a pretty large amount it seems, maybe around 8 degrees? It seems a lot as it must be paralel to the reference plane, which it obviously is not
It must be parallel during scrutineering, as far as I know the FIA doesn't use photographic evidence.wesley123 wrote:And by a pretty large amount it seems, maybe around 8 degrees? It seems a lot as it must be paralel to the reference plane, which it obviously is not
That may be true for penalties but they do take notice of photographic evidence. McLaren in Valencia 2011 where the FIA saw on-board footage that seemed to show a joint built into the FW pylons opening to flatten the wing (similar effect to here) is one example, the infamous RBR flexi-wings another. Both examples resulted in either a tech directive or a change in the rules.superdread wrote:It must be parallel during scrutineering, as far as I know the FIA doesn't use photographic evidence.wesley123 wrote:And by a pretty large amount it seems, maybe around 8 degrees? It seems a lot as it must be paralel to the reference plane, which it obviously is not
The tire is well on the ground (it goes on after Pirelli's stripe).NoDivergence wrote:That picture is not fully accurate. You can see the right front tire is not even on the ground. Must have hit a bump or something
Yes, I didn't quite meant that they ignore the existence of photography. They just don't use it as direct evidence for rule breaking (apart from the video surveillance of the quasi parc ferme and maybe some other things (cutting the track, blocking...)).Jackles-UK wrote: That may be true for penalties but they do take notice of photographic evidence. McLaren in Valencia 2011 where the FIA saw on-board footage that seemed to show a joint built into the FW pylons opening to flatten the wing (similar effect to here) is one example, the infamous RBR flexi-wings another. Both examples resulted in either a tech directive or a change in the rules.
I would be surprised to hear that the marshals overlooked such a piece. Now, the actual end plate looks like a McLaren part, so I doubt that he was just being a good boy scout.Owen.C93 wrote:It was in the middle of the pitlane so he picked it up so the marshalls didn't have to. (They may have missed it).gilgen wrote:Does anyone know why Hamilton took the time to recover a part of the front wing, and carry it all the way back to the pits? Maybe this is the part that is flexing?
http://www.formula1.com/wi/sutton/2012/d12bel2506.jpg
Because the suspension is broken... you did see the accident this car was in right?Holm86 wrote:How come theres so much camber on the rear wheel??? Suspension components not installed??
It simply adds downforce. I believe this huge gurney forces air either trough the starter hole or through the gurney slitJackles-UK wrote:What is the point in the big extension in the diffuser gurney beneath the rain light? is it one of those "we've fitted this part so now it's legal" type jobbies or does it actually do something useful? Seems like nothing but free drag otherwise!
they took inspiation from WTCC FWD state of the art suspension settings at the rear.Holm86 wrote:How come theres so much camber on the rear wheel??? Suspension components not installed??
