Content Wrapper

[Fabio]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonyt3

Well, I dont want to start some kind of disagreement here, but it clearly states the car became airbourne after hitting a bump in the road. It doesnt say "the car was just going along and all of a sudden became airbourne for no apparant reason other than the designer forgot to put on a rear wing....."

if your doing 162mph in any car, with rear wing or not, and you hit a bump in the road, your going to become airbourne. The fool driving the car was doing so on a road not designed for these speeds.

I agree with Northandy in respect to the sudden lack of downforce from loss of the ground effect, would cause very interesting results (isnt this also what was eventually attributed to the reason Ayrton Senna crashed - loss of ground effect due to the car fully bottoming out, caused by lack of air pressure in the tyres due to the fact the car had been run at slow speed behind the safety car for a prolonged period of time....?). However, the loss of down force would have been caused by the bump in the road, not the lack of a rear wing.

Certaily, loss of a rear wing on a car that is designed to have one from the start causes all sorts of grief.

At the end of the day, just about every Ferrari crashed on a public road would have one root cause to the incedent - a bloody rich fool showing off and exceeding his competency levels in terms of driving skills!!!

your right agreeing with Northandy, that was the point i was making in the first place but i feel that supercars that have the rear wings, e.g carrera GT, slr wont have as dramatic crashes if they hit a 'bump'