- 10,270
- Bonn
- GTAce
If it would be as quick as it's beautiful, it could win Le Mans with ease.
Like the chameleon it is, the ByKolles is now grey for Le Mans. Looks nice.
Sick.Porsche and Audi 3:20!
If it would be as quick as it's beautiful, it could win Le Mans with ease.
Like the chameleon it is, the ByKolles is now grey for Le Mans. Looks nice.
Sick.Porsche and Audi 3:20!
Rebellion no slouch on straights, as are these red Japanese things.
Say what you will about the Nissan's reliability, but you can't deny that they aren't snails when it comes to overall top speed.
Also, is the CLM ByKolles' car? If it is, it has done the impossible and be slower than the fastest LMP2 (SARD's Morgan). Ouch.
I'll be fair on CLMByKodewaLotus though, and say that Morgan must have had a low aero trim to be that fast in relation to other P2's.. Nissan also had traffic and as aforementioned, Porsche are not trying
Toyota to best sectors of the session.
Sec 1- +.816
Sec 2- +2.369
Sec 3- +2.093
True but they are slower than TP1 last year.Traffic bear in mind. 63 cars on track for test day as well, granted not all at once but it disguises pace. Teams often don't try at Test Day properly... I remember Audi last year only doing 170 on Mulsanne...
Nissan doing even worse than I thought they would.
Did they (ACO) really pull the Nissan's in and make them change their mirrors after passing them in scrutineering?
So...is there an English livefeed at all or are we all limited to text updates?
How very French of them.Yes.
So wait @TDZdave was right and Nissan did have an illegal car and everyone who said it was legal was wrong? Is he getting an apologie?Yes.
Yeah, I'm SURE of all the things possibly illegal on the car he had the mirrors in mind, but continued to make vague statements and not share it with us.So wait @TDZdave was right and Nissan did have an illegal car and everyone who said it was legal was wrong? Is he getting an apologie?
So wait @TDZdave was right and Nissan did have an illegal car and everyone who said it was legal was wrong? Is he getting an apologie?
17.4Errr no. Nothing "illegal" in composition or build, Scrutineers felt that they didn't offer enough rear visibility. Last I checked there is no measure for rear visibility so technically no regulation was violated.
17.4
Rear view mirrors
Two rear view mirrors (one each side) must provide an efficient vision to the rear.
The Scrutineers must be assured through a practical demonstration that the driver, seated normally, can clearly see the vehicles following him.
To this end, the driver will be asked to identify letters or figures, 15 cm high and 10 cm wide, displayed at random on boards placed behind the car according to the following instructions :
- Height : Between 40 cm and 100 cm from the ground.
- Width : 2 m one side or the other from the centreline of
the car.
- Position : 10 m behind the centreline of the rear axle of the
car.
Minimum area : 100 cm2 for each mirror.
They must have a day/night mode. A film may be added on the mirror.
And this is the very first time the car has been in front of the organisers of any kind, it also says "at random".
But there is a rule which measures rear visibility so kinda proves your post wrong.And this is the very first time the car has been in front of the organisers of any kind, it also says "at random".
Errr no. Nothing "illegal" in composition or build, Scrutineers felt that they didn't offer enough rear visibility. Last I checked there is no measure for rear visibility so technically no regulation was violated.
Illegal is still illegal let's hope Toyota have made their rear wing legal this year.Are we really arguing over the car being "illegal" over something stupid simple like rear view mirrors?
Some people grasping at straws I think.