 | |
Whacky Macky Wings
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#41
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Whacky Macky Wings -
05-03-2007
, 01:56 AM
|
On 1 May 2007 06:22:58 GMT, "Paul-B" <paul (AT) rasf1 (DOT) net> wrote: Luigi Topolino wrote: On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:00:44 +0100, Phil Newnham pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> >> wrote: CatharticF1 wrote: forty <cforteNO (AT) SPAMgmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:59m7l1F2jououU14 @mid.individual.net: They've crossed the line and entered the 'totally fugly' zone: http://www.formula1.com/news/6016.html McLaren - boldy going where the ugly stick dares to tread. (It's time they regulated all of these additional aero devices off >> the >> cars.) So it's ok when Ferrari have two deck wings, but when McLaren do the same thing but it's not as pretty, you want to ban it? How is that the same thing, even for someone as blinkered and unreasoning as you? Are you ever going to contribute something instructive or informative here? What ignorant blathering rockheaded nationalist twats such as you don't get is I rather like Phil, he's bright if not smart, and if I can get him to recognize even one of his logical inconsistencies are based on parochial preconceptions and jingoistic fervor it'll be worth all the racist, nationalist, village idiot spittle I've endured from the likes of you and your dark-ages cohort. Even a blind man, or a know nothing dimwit like you, can see McLaren's novel front wing solution is nothing similar to Ferrari's: For Phil to claim otherwise has reason in other than science or logic. |
here?
The answer is simple, the answer is clear...
--
Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version here now.
#42
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 01 May 2007 13:18:18 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: Luigi Topolino wrote: On Tue, 01 May 2007 10:07:49 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: Luigi Topolino wrote: On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:00:44 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: CatharticF1 wrote: forty <cforteNO (AT) SPAMgmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:59m7l1F2jououU14 @mid.individual.net: They've crossed the line and entered the 'totally fugly' zone: http://www.formula1.com/news/6016.html McLaren - boldy going where the ugly stick dares to tread. (It's time they regulated all of these additional aero devices off the cars.) So it's ok when Ferrari have two deck wings, but when McLaren do the same thing but it's not as pretty, you want to ban it? How is that the same thing, even for someone as blinkered and unreasoning as you? How is it not the same thing? They are not even facially similar. No? Look again. Try to see what's actually there and ignore the fact that you don't like the aesthetics. Not even close to similar. Sad that you can't see that for the nationalities. |
person bringing nationality into the equation is you. Ferrari aren't the
only team with a double deck wing, nor are they the only team that
connects theirs to the nosecone, although they are the only ones so far
caught using a sliding pin to attach something that legally has to be
rigidly mounted. Incidentally, if you want to see genuine ugliness on
the front of an F1 car, go find a photo of what Honda are doing to theirs.
Quote:
|
Look, either make a point or go away, I'm fed up with your inane insensible questions. The point, well made and yet again, is you clearly don't understand even only what you are looking at, much less what you might actually see. No. The point is that you have no point to make beyond baseless accusation, as always. You think a spanning free standing wing element looks like, much less behaves as, two smaller fully supported elements of similar area? |
be another one directly beneath it. The only difference is in the
middle, and the difference is not going to be massively significant,
especially considering the setting angle and chord of the centre section
compared to the rest. There's an obvious pre-existing reason why the
McLaren one isn't plugged into the sides of the nose - see if you can
spot it. If you think it will be hugely different, then try to explain
why, instead of just claiming that you know something.
Quote:
|
...Perhaps your ignorant countrymen are right, and I am wasting my time. |
knowledge or useful information.
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
#43
| |||
| |||
|
|
Phil Newnham wrote: Luigi Topolino wrote: On Tue, 01 May 2007 10:07:49 +0100, Phil Newnham pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: Luigi Topolino wrote: On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:00:44 +0100, Phil Newnham pnewnham (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: CatharticF1 wrote: forty <cforteNO (AT) SPAMgmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:59m7l1F2jououU14 @mid.individual.net: They've crossed the line and entered the 'totally fugly' zone: http://www.formula1.com/news/6016.html McLaren - boldy going where the ugly stick dares to tread. (It's time they regulated all of these additional aero devices off the cars.) So it's ok when Ferrari have two deck wings, but when McLaren do the same thing but it's not as pretty, you want to ban it? How is that the same thing, even for someone as blinkered and unreasoning as you? How is it not the same thing? They are not even facially similar. No? Look again. Try to see what's actually there and ignore the fact that you don't like the aesthetics. Renault insider viewpoint: "In any case, the "radical" wing is only really a slightly different take on the cascade wings that are on our car, the Ferrari, the Toyota etc.." |
--
Phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmc1979/
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.