Re: How was the 'mas dampers' justified as an 'aero' device ??
- From: "Bob Dubery" <megapode@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Sep 2006 21:07:06 -0700
Richard Miller wrote:
In message <5aaig29cisssgte4461t9gokjudn33739p@xxxxxxx>, f/fgeorge
<ffgeorge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Ummmm you seem to forget that the Renault Engineers said during the
hearing that it did affect the aero a small amount.
And you seem to forget that so do the brakes, accelerator, driver, and
just about every other part on and in the car in some way or other.
Yes, but the brakes aren't there PRIMARILY to effect the aero setup.
And the driver, even if it drives the designers and pit crew mad, is
compulsory,
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How was the 'mas dampers' justified as an 'aero' device ??
- From: Phil Newnham
- Re: How was the 'mas dampers' justified as an 'aero' device ??
- References:
- How was the 'mas dampers' justified as an 'aero' device ??
- From: michaelomitchell
- Re: How was the 'mas dampers' justified as an 'aero' device ??
- From: Richard Miller
- Re: How was the 'mas dampers' justified as an 'aero' device ??
- From: Richard Miller
- How was the 'mas dampers' justified as an 'aero' device ??
- Prev by Date: Re: OT- Who's Who - Country/Members count
- Next by Date: Re: example of sportsmanship in f1?
- Previous by thread: Re: How was the 'mas dampers' justified as an 'aero' device ??
- Next by thread: Re: How was the 'mas dampers' justified as an 'aero' device ??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|