sorry, that is not correct.turbof1 wrote:Both the CGI and the presentation cars had the same flow conditioner.
FrukostScones wrote:
launch
they are the same yesturbof1 wrote:[im]http://imageshack.us/a/img803/3917/e21u.jpg[/img]
[im]http://svet-hitrosti.com/wp-content/upl ... tusn31.jpg[/img]
The same. There are is an other CGI version where the flow conditioners indeed are different, but clearly both here are the same.
MadYarpen wrote:
Spot the difference.
just for your info, you can't even notice the difference between the CGI and and a studio shot. try to twist the reality elswhere.turbof1 wrote:I am not going to invest more time into that discussion. You might be right that it has a slightly different shape, but they still tried the conditioner extended from the sidepod vane.
Checking the pictures, I have noticed they already tried 4 different flow conditioner solutions. Lotus gives high value to this area.
wandering why they left it out without trying the device....just increase further drag.teon wrote:???
MadYarpen wrote:
Spot the difference.
studio shots, no I only saw one version of cgi and flow conditionersKansas wrote:there are two types of CGI released
one showing the jerez spec flow conditioner, the other from the launch car.
they might be testing which provide better air flow to the rear.
FrukostScones wrote:just for your info, you can't even notice the difference between the CGI and and a studio shot. try to twist the reality elswhere.turbof1 wrote:I am not going to invest more time into that discussion. You might be right that it has a slightly different shape, but they still tried the conditioner extended from the sidepod vane.
Checking the pictures, I have noticed they already tried 4 different flow conditioner solutions. Lotus gives high value to this area.