View Single Post
  #69   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 12:54
martin417's Avatar
martin417 martin417 is offline
Opinionated old goat
AKA: Martin Wilson
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 721
martin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Propulsion that does not involve driving wheels

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH View Post
For those of you saying that a downforce would be legal:

I'm 99% sure that it's not legal. The wording in the rule is clear: if it increases traction, it's not legal. The idea is to increase the normal force, which increases available frictional force (not friction), which increases traction. That's increasing traction, which is illegal.

The other 1% says to ask Q&A when it comes online and see what they say.
The way I read the rule:

<R06>"No other forms of traction devices (wheels, tracks, legs, or other devices intended to provide traction) are permitted

Increasing downforce does not provide traction. I know this is a semantics argument, but I think the rules are very carefully worded. Traction is provided by whatever contacts the ground. If it doesn't contact the ground, it cannot provide traction.
__________________
Former Mentor Team 1771
Former mentor Team 4509