data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/efde5/efde5161a49d5ac9c2b0ff1842bbe1fbc0b049e7" alt="Image"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/80957/80957e5f4a600935032046c0d689ad04e9366d51" alt="Image"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d605b/d605bdaa481aa58f02220a7b3c80e12bb9fb84c4" alt="Image"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fa5dc/fa5dcf093bc5536a816850bc242a47e265cf94cd" alt="Image"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7f6d2/7f6d2f965a23cce01485f903e91f9104cb3aaec3" alt="Image"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9dd31/9dd3193bb33238faf62cbe3cdf93b5ecb9616c80" alt="Image"
Agreed. The regs have max side pod width 1400, same as now, and Max floor 1600.Paul wrote:Sidepods look too wide.
I don't really like the way the Ferrari rear wing end-plates narrow at mid-point. The combination of being being tall and narrowing puts me off. I much prefer the style of rear wings in the images of the older cars you posted, e.g McLaren MP4/8 etc.wuzak wrote:I think that the high and wide rear wing like on the Ferrari test car.
http://d24ftq11lp1zg6.cloudfront.net/hr ... 96cb35f1-4
http://cdn-5.motorsport.com/images/amp/ ... sf15-t.jpg
http://cdn-7.motorsport.com/images/mgl/ ... sf15-t.jpg
http://imgr1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Es ... 967283.jpg
It doesn't look at all bad on the Perrin car, because it is essentially hidden by the low height of the wing. I wonder why this narrowing was written into the regs as you say? At first I thought it was because the regs would allow a narrow beam wing, but that has been rescinded. The narrowing would probably be a natural design avenue for the engineers, to allow them to continue using similar sized rear brake duct fins.RicME85 wrote:They will all have a bend in them as the top section is wider than the lower section in the regs