I thought it was you but I was too lazy to check.
But..... what's your point? We seem to be agreeing with the physics of the 'breakage'; where do we differ in the assumed outcomes?
My point was: if the nose is weak enough to break on impact, the lead driver now has all the advantages. To keep people behind you, you only have to stab the brakes when anyone gets at all close to overtaking.
It might be better if not only the FRONT Tupperware breaks on impact, so should the REAR (plastic) bumper. Now both lose out if there is a front/rear collision, then the disadvantage is shared equally and both drivers will do everything they can to avoid contact.
The reason F1 guys try not to hit each other is the same (welllll.... most of the time) it's because usually BOTH lose out on a performance tool from the impact (front wing and rear-wing/tyres).
In my day, most avoided the rear-end tricks because both of you had a way of dealing with persistent and deliberate cheats. I think of it like MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction): Bothy parties cannot risk pushing the button and thus we all remain safe (errrrrr....... safer.... I hope!).
Kind regards to our esteemed brother over the water!
Ian
|
|