CBeck113 wrote: I prefer the cameltoe designation better, just because the double meaning fits to the general XX & XY theme of this season.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/39ae2/39ae2f29de13e91858e3ed371269b09d2e1e9210" alt="Laughing :lol:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/39ae2/39ae2f29de13e91858e3ed371269b09d2e1e9210" alt="Laughing :lol:"
+1
CBeck113 wrote: I prefer the cameltoe designation better, just because the double meaning fits to the general XX & XY theme of this season.
It is still only irelevent aero design and not even that it is design within narrow regulations.monsi wrote:I must say that I find all the different design solutions very refreshing. Lots of evidence of engineering teams picking different design solutions. I would love it if the prescriptive regulations were more flexible so we could see even more variation between the cars.
Daliracing wrote:A crash will be called bangkok
so, another in row for the man with the finger?321apex wrote: the next F1 World Champion may not be the best driver.
No, that is not what I had in mind. Rather it could be any driver out of the top 5 teams. Just "roll the dice mister".Manoah2u wrote:so, another in row for the man with the finger?321apex wrote: the next F1 World Champion may not be the best driver.
![]()