They are actually 2 completely different wings. Look at the vertical strakes, the flaps and the curves in the main planes at the endplates.Polarbear wrote:The pictures which have the two wings one on top of the other - the FWEP detail is different in the two wings.
One has a 90 degree angle in the top corner, the other appears to have had the corner chopped off.
Thoughts?
Is that the launch spec airbox/cooling vent? or is it new?Forza wrote:F1 Malaysian GP - Friday FP - 22/3/2013
http://img1.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Max ... 671374.jpg
Not to Bottas!!Huntresa wrote:Not far behind bottas, this is looking good
It is simple. Just people still don't understand that complex does not mean good.LotusF1 wrote:the marussia has more downforce than the caterham. now who were the geniuses that called this car simple/elementary?
Lots of aero detail can me 2 things.beelsebob wrote:It is simple. Just people still don't understand that complex does not mean good.LotusF1 wrote:the marussia has more downforce than the caterham. now who were the geniuses that called this car simple/elementary?
Perfect example!Coefficient wrote:Lots of aero detail can me 2 things.beelsebob wrote:It is simple. Just people still don't understand that complex does not mean good.LotusF1 wrote:the marussia has more downforce than the caterham. now who were the geniuses that called this car simple/elementary?
1. The basic concept is flawed or sub-optimal so lots of appendages are required to re-condition the flow.
2. The car's flow characteristics are very well understood, it's working well and gains can be found by augmenting the flow with detail changes. (Red Bull)