![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
Strict regulations that force you to have it? They could theoretically do away with the rear wing, couldn't they (Not at all suggesting that this is the case).xpensive wrote:What's the point of a wing without air-movement? For sponsors only?
The next question is how that can be an advantage? Aren't they hunting for down force? So how is a zero zone going to help that?xpensive wrote:I think it's an aerodynamic area, yet unchartered, where Bernoulli doesn't apply, dynamic pressure is zero. Hence a dead zone.
Sorry about that one WB, I'm only fooling around. This thread is just to much at times, right now for xample.WhiteBlue wrote:The next question is how that can be an advantage? Aren't they hunting for down force? So how is a zero zone going to help that?xpensive wrote:I think it's an aerodynamic area, yet unchartered, where Bernoulli doesn't apply, dynamic pressure is zero. Hence a dead zone.
well, it sounds queer at timesxpensive wrote:Sorry about that one WB, I'm only fooling around. This thread is just to much at times, right now for xample.WhiteBlue wrote:The next question is how that can be an advantage? Aren't they hunting for down force? So how is a zero zone going to help that?xpensive wrote:I think it's an aerodynamic area, yet unchartered, where Bernoulli doesn't apply, dynamic pressure is zero. Hence a dead zone.
Don't you think they hadn't all early signs that MP4/24 would be a good car back then? Let's wait before MP4/25 hits the track.mstar wrote:goony any EARLY signs that the MP4/25 will be a good car? any signs/trends
Am sure he said they haven't built one yet....mstar wrote:goony any EARLY signs that the MP4/25 will be a good car? any signs/trends