data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/48e08/48e08a4184123cb998e907d124ab094463d91ff8" alt="Image"
Which is a deserved F1 2017 car design?
Was thinking the same.......DiogoBrand wrote:Basically all that changes is the nose? I'd go with B.
I just don't get why they want to make the wings and other bits of bodywork at an angle. that argument about it looking "more agressive" is total BS. And I don't see why they want to allow for more aero, if that's what's hinders overtaking.
Same here, since the only change is the nose.Samraj_official wrote:Was thinking the same.......DiogoBrand wrote:Basically all that changes is the nose? I'd go with B.
I just don't get why they want to make the wings and other bits of bodywork at an angle. that argument about it looking "more agressive" is total BS. And I don't see why they want to allow for more aero, if that's what's hinders overtaking.
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
It's a side wingletThunders wrote:What are the 2 box sections at the side of the Sidepods in drawing C? Is that supposed to be an EBD?
Other than that, Nose wise definitely B.
#aerogollumturbof1 wrote: YOU SHALL NOT......STALLLLL!!!
Because this hasn't actually been established or demonstrated. It basically goes back to old cars could overtake, new ones can't, it must be because of aero.DiogoBrand wrote: And I don't see why they want to allow for more aero, if that's what hinders overtaking.
Just as I thought. So why are those features in the drawings, I ask?Thunders wrote:No..
Old cars could overtake not because of aero, but because in the old days everything was much more unpredictable than today. Cars would go wrong, strategies would go wrong, and drivers would make mistakes more often.mrluke wrote:Because this hasn't actually been established or demonstrated. It basically goes back to old cars could overtake, new ones can't, it must be because of aero.DiogoBrand wrote: And I don't see why they want to allow for more aero, if that's what hinders overtaking.