Red Bull RB10 Renault

[SectorOne]

I´m not even sure how to explain it further other then reapeating myself. In my opinion the problem is quite obvious if these are holes.

Holes meaning they show whatever is behind the hole. Problem is one shows the rear wing endplate the other angled so that if it were a hole it would show the mechanic´s legs in dark blue.

But it doesn´t. It shows an identical pattern but vertically reversed.

White dot and horizontal rivets.

[beelsebob]

I´m not even sure how to explain it further other then reapeating myself. In my opinion the problem is quite obvious if these are holes.

Holes meaning they show whatever is behind the hole. Problem is one shows the rear wing endplate the other angled so that if it were a hole it would show the mechanic´s legs in dark blue.

But it doesn´t. It shows an identical pattern but vertically reversed.

White dot and horizontal rivets.

You're right, it is indeed quite obvious that these are holes.

The fact that we have clear indents leading up to them on one side of the wing, and can see the sun light reflecting off the edge of them through the hole on the other side makes that extremely clear.

[irang]

Still not sure what you mean. Here's an annotated pic of the indented slots where the air enters from outside the endplates.
http://i.imgur.com/5XqXu3K.jpg

I think he's looking at this yellow part? http://i.imgur.com/9RZt1nP.jpg

Unless Riccairdo ran asymmetric endplates they might have tested something in the morning?
http://f1grandprix.motorionline.com/dow ... -00072.jpg
http://f1grandprix.motorionline.com/dow ... -00048.jpg

[SectorOne]

You're right, it is indeed quite obvious that these are holes.

The fact that we have clear indents leading up to them on one side of the wing, and can see the sun light reflecting off the edge of them through the hole on the other side makes that extremely clear.

Actually the evidence suggest these are not holes.
It´s actually quite obvious when you realize the two holes showing different backgrounds cannot possible show the same pattern but vertically reversed.

It´s just not possible for a hole to do this.

Just to point this out even further. One hole is supposedly showing the rear wing endplate. The other taken at an angle which no bodywork can be shown in the hole itself.

And yet they show an identical pattern only reversed. As you can imagine this is impossible if it really was holes.

[beelsebob]

You're right, it is indeed quite obvious that these are holes.

The fact that we have clear indents leading up to them on one side of the wing, and can see the sun light reflecting off the edge of them through the hole on the other side makes that extremely clear.

Actually the evidence suggest these are not holes.
It´s actually quite obvious when you realize the two holes showing different backgrounds cannot possible show the same pattern but vertically reversed.

It´s just not possible for a hole to do this.

Just to point this out even further. One hole is supposedly showing the rear wing endplate. The other taken at an angle which no bodywork can be shown in the hole itself.

And yet they show an identical pattern only reversed. As you can imagine this is impossible if it really was holes.

Honestly, I have no clue what you're babbling on about. Can you draw a diagram?

[SectorOne]

I´m not babbling, i´ve explained quite fundamentally why these possibly cannot be holes.

A hole means that whatever is behind the hole will show, this is basic facts.
Now if one image of the "hole" supposedly shows the rear wing endplate (as in image 2)
You cannot possible have the same pattern in picture 1 because the light going through the hole has no connection to any bodywork of the car.

I genuinely cannot emphasize this fundamental problem anymore then i already have.

[JimClarkFan]

You're right, it is indeed quite obvious that these are holes.

The fact that we have clear indents leading up to them on one side of the wing, and can see the sun light reflecting off the edge of them through the hole on the other side makes that extremely clear.

Actually the evidence suggest these are not holes.
It´s actually quite obvious when you realize the two holes showing different backgrounds cannot possible show the same pattern but vertically reversed.

It´s just not possible for a hole to do this.

Just to point this out even further. One hole is supposedly showing the rear wing endplate. The other taken at an angle which no bodywork can be shown in the hole itself.

And yet they show an identical pattern only reversed. As you can imagine this is impossible if it really was holes.

Honestly, I have no clue what you're babbling on about. Can you draw a diagram?

this

[Owen.C93]

Those are stickers I believe. I was talking about the 3 slots under and behind the front wing. Hence why I mentioned the slots normally ontop of the wing in the endplates because they are similar.

http://i.imgur.com/5XqXu3K.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rr13oNC.jpg

[SectorOne]

the rear wing edge seen from above. Left and right side respectively.
As you can see it´s impossible for the two holes to produce identical pattern´s when one hole is showing the rear wing endplate while the other it pointing out and away from the car itself.

Black is wing. Top one is right hand side of the rear wing, bottom is left side of the rear wing.
Red is the supposed hole.
Yellow is light (or camera direction if you will)



Put simply, these are NOT holes. Because it´s physically impossible for it to be holes.
Unless the laws of nature got changed around since i started writing about these things.

[beelsebob]

I´m not babbling, i´ve explained quite fundamentally why these possibly cannot be holes.

A hole means that whatever is behind the hole will show, this is basic facts.
Now if one image of the "hole" supposedly shows the rear wing endplate (as in image 2)
You cannot possible have the same pattern in picture 1 because the light going through the hole has no connection to any bodywork of the car.

I genuinely cannot emphasize this fundamental problem anymore then i already have.


http://i.imgur.com/18myC6J.png

The two photos you just linked do not show the three holes that are being talked about...

For reference – we are not talking about the two stickers on the back of the end plates. We're talking about 6 (3 pairs) of holes under and behind the rear wing.

[SectorOne]

I´m talking about the long stripes on the very edge of the endplate.

the slots between the rear wing and endplate is old news, been around for years now.
Not sure why there would be any discussion regarding a thing F1 has been using for quite a while now.

[beelsebob]

I´m talking about the long stripes on the very edge of the endplate.

You're not talking bout the same thing as everyone else then.

[SectorOne]

I´m talking about the long stripes on the very edge of the endplate.

You're not talking bout the same thing as everyone else then.

Quite possibly. i thought the slots between the rear wing and endplate was normal in today´s F1 as many teams have used it for several years.

Slots in the very leading edge has not been used though.

[beelsebob]

I´m talking about the long stripes on the very edge of the endplate.

You're not talking bout the same thing as everyone else then.

Quite possibly. i thought the slots between the rear wing and endplate was normal in today´s F1 as many teams have used it for several years.

Slots in the very leading edge has not been used though.

No, not the slots, the holes *in* the end plate. There are three, beneath the rear wing.

[SectorOne]

Oh damn the slits, ok i can now see how this created a mess. I apologize to everyone.