..when you have to make the cars heavier to be effective?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74954
I thought it was 80 hp?ISLAMATRON wrote:161 hp is the point!
double for next year, the same time when they increase the min weightJamesS wrote:I thought it was 80 hp?ISLAMATRON wrote:161 hp is the point!
xpensive wrote:Perhaps the wron thread, but speaking of which Islam, is the diffence between short- and long whelbase still the classic agile-but-twitchy vs stable-but-slow?
Rob W wrote:I've gotta say, for all the gripes/issues people talk about with KERS, you only need to see some of the footage of Lewis using it to get a jump on cars early in the straights to see that, if done well/reliably, you'd be at a significant disadvantage not to have it.
McLaren's KERS seems to show where BMW and Ferrari went wrong.. it doesn't seem to have affected the McLaren car handling to the point where there is a discussion as to whether it should even be there.
Once the car reaches higher speeds the aero increases downforce and the tire traction. Under those conditions, you're not going to see wheelspin. Also, as the car accelerates through the gears, each gear change lowers the torque to the rear wheels. You may be able to get wheelspin at lower gears and under 100 klicks, but not above it.xpensive wrote:Ciro says the cars cannot use all the engine-power without wheel-spin anyway, why I can't see the point either?