hrd-hr30

Doesn't take much for the douchebag in Hamilton to come out! Rosberg scored 2 little victories there - one over Hamilton for pole and also over Hamilton mentally - he's no poker player! The last thing you'd do is let the other guy know how pissed off you are like that - or carry on like a child in the press conference broadcast to the world! I wouldn't be surprised if Hamilton does something stupid tonight, or makes one of his trademark silly mistakes...

I have NT01's. They are simply Toyo R888 in disguise. Nitto is a brand subsiduary of Toyo. They are made by Toyo in Japan, in Toyo factories. Have the same construction according to Nitto/Toyo. Have the same compound. They're just a Toyo R888 with a different pattern and cheaper price. Like the Toyo R888 which I've also had, they're not a great semi. They're OK, but not a patch on the top ones. But they are half the price, so what would you expect? If you want a cheap semi that will do the job OK and be consistent through it's life, they're fine. If you're expecting really good things from them compared to other semis, you'll probably be dissapointed. That's the opposite of my experience with all those tyres. I set PBs on KU36 right to the end of their life. They stayed very consistent right through their life. KU36 are not in the same league as RSR's performance - no way in the world! I'd have to agree that NT01's are not a whole lot better in performance than RSR. They will last longer though, and not go off as quickly as RSR's in a session. NT01 sidewall is as stiff as other semis I've used, and I wouldn't say they were light for a semi either. Are you sure you're not talking about NT05's?

I've got Camzilla suction cup and roll cage mounts, one long and one short arm. You can chain the arms together as well. Would solve the problem of the harness bar being too for the camera to see over the dash. They're very good quality and not expensive. And I use a thin plastic coated wire (from Bunnings) and U clamps when the camera is mounted externally. One end looped around the arm of my Camzilla mount, run the wire through the window and loop that end around a grab handle. Only takes a minute to put it on.

good luck - last year at Monaco Mercedes locked out the front row and won the race, and they set the pole time the year before that...

A bit of fun from the Lotus Club gymkhana on the weekend in my Soarer, trying out the new camera and a few different angles:

yawn... torro rosso = red bull I've read the full decision of the appeals court - "As evidence of the reliability of its fuel flow model, the Appellant provided a series of graphs...Several graphs actually showed that parameters had changed from one lap to the other and that one cannot, therefore, conclude that the fuel flow model did not change notably... On top of this, it appears that not all parameters... were shown in the graphs" That was their "proof" - doctored graphs and refusing to fully disclose the parameters used to esitmate fuel flow in their model! Let's put it to rest already.

Nothing wrong with the Toyota motors other than the petrol sixes valve stem seals. The 100 series 4.2 turbo diesel is an absolute cracker!

Only possible if it's an old fashioned part time 4WD with manual locking hubs. It's the main thing I missed about my old Patrol. If you have a part time 4WD (with transfer case) and auto hubs, this will put it in 4wd and you risk binding the transfer case if you're turning while reversing the trailer. D40 is in that category, so selecting 4L and reversing is not an option if you need manoeuvre the trailer at all. Unless there's a pov spec version with manual hubs? And constant 4WD things (with center diffs) normally only go to low range with the centre diff locked. Again, this risks damaging the driveline. Low range reversing not really an option

No, that's exactly the same design principle, only difference is in the execution. Dunstan head runs the rotating valve shaft longitudinally with a port that opens to orrifices in the head casting, BRV runs individual rotary valve shafts at 90deg to the crank centerline necessitating a complicated gear drive system and completely incorporates the port into them. Same idea, different execution. The rotating disc valve is a different design, but shares the common trait that they really don't work reliably! the significant difference is you can see actual images of a real life Dunstan rotary valve head, BRV ironically only had drawings of their design in that article about how they finally made one that worked!

rotary valves are nothing new. IIRC there was a rotary valve head made back in the day for holden grey motors. Dunstan or something. And I doubt that was the first. Rotary valves have always looked good in theory, but have alot of problems in practice.

x2. Seb showed at Bahrain he'll do the right thing and let the other guy through if they're on different strategies, but if they're racing for position, its a race. Dan was easily good enough though. He's a real surprise packet for me this year. They mentioned during the race he's probably more used to having to fight cars with less downorce, but you'd expect Vettel to have got the hang of these cars by now if he's going to. Also Dans wet pace is really surprising. As team mates, JEV normally had his measure in the wet, but this year Dan's right on it in wet conditions. He's stepped it up and all signs are he's got Vettel's measure in qualy and racing. Impressive! Good interesting race. I was expecting Red Bull to be a bit closer to the Mercs with Renault saying they're now at very close to peak performance in the lead up to this race. And Lotus getting the same Renault engine spec that Red Bull had last round certainly helped them in qualy. But it was Alonso outta nowhere as the big improver! Where did his pace come from? Lucky he didn't take himself out at the start though.

didn't realised you'd changed topic from what you were saying about using 'happy' meters to gain power back to red bull in Aus. You've got it wrong anyway. You're quoting RBR's media spin. Here's what came out in the court: http://thejudge13.com/2014/04/14/a-day-in-the-f1-appeal-court-sifting-the-evidence/ As I said before, it's time to stop believing Red Bull.

two VERY diferent things there. Roy's saying you gain this extra 15 horsepower by carefully selecting your meter from a big stockpile you buy to find the most friendly unit. Get one that's 1.3% out and you get an FIA offset to correct it, not a free 15bhp extra! It's complete nonsense. lol at Newey's justification of a reading jump at lap 38 meaning the sensor was inaccurate! They'd already switched to their own fuel flow model from lap 16 FFS! Apparently well before it was broken... http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113447

you have the numbers way wrong. 1-2% is miles off: 52% of meter's manufactured are within 0.1% accuracy 92% of meters manufactured are within 0.25% accuracy So no, it cannot "easily be 15hp!!!"

Oh no, not three to five hp extra!!!!!!! That's sure to make a monumental difference to cars with a total of about 760bhp. It's an absolute lottery as to who will be fast every race!

f**king Porsche! I was trying to verify Roy's claim that Virgin's performance had been hurt in the first two GP's by the fuel flow meter. And all it says anyway is "right now we don’t know if it is all going to be robust. We should know at the end of March". Compelling!

Every other team complied with FIA's directions though. Only RBR chose to play the game their own way to stay ahead of those teams playing to the rules. The absolute correctness of the FIA's numbers in comparison to each individual teams modelling is pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is each team gets the same mass flow rate. If each team gets to decide how to calculate fuel flow themselves just because they don't want to lose a position, it's going to be a complete farce.

so no source. just correcting mis-information. but you did hit on the problem; "we all WANTED Dan to have his position re-instated" because you're parochial aussie fans... the rest of the sport wanted the exact opposite, including the other teams. If the meters were so bad they were affecting performance of all these other teams, they'd be wanting change too.

source? You misunderstand accuracy and precision, and what the offset is for. could be any number of reasons early in the season with the teething problems both RBR and Renault have had, and a brand new Renault PU for that team that weekend. But for you, it MUST be the fuel flow meter... Can't argue with logic like that. Yes they can fail. That's not a point in favour of your argument. That's why the FIA have the process in place to use a backup method when they do fail. The failures are very easy to identify. it didn't happen to RBR's meter in the race. It behaved the same as it did in practice. Virgin not happy with the offset? They haven't raced since 2011 mate. Calm down, take a deep breath... I've just read through Marussia's official site and only see talk of them improving the car, re-optimising ERS, improving the performance of the PU, and strategy as reasons for their improved performance. A quick google didn't turn up any articles about them complaining about the meter hurting performance either. In fact, Marussia hopes Red Bull lose Ricciardo disqualification appeal Read more http://grandprix247.com/2014/03/25/marussia-hopes-red-bull-loses-ricciardo-disqualification-appeal/:

You're just parroting RBR's "trial by media" propoganda. The fact is the meter's accuracy (how correct it's measurements are) is corrected individiually by offsets, so they all effectively read the same mass flow. The meter's precision (how repeatabe it measurements are) is very high. So once corrected against the test bench mass flow, all meters deliver the same end result. If it was "chook lotto" like that RBR claim, all the teams would be shitty about the meters. But the other teams are on FIA's side!

not sure how it's trolling. This is the exact same sentiment as one of my points: allow every team to decide for themselves how to measure flow and when to listen to the meter and it's "wild west" stuff. you neglected to bold the important (some may even say crucial) part there. lol It also echos what I said: How's that trolling? Yes, you certainly can. Because they would have lost second place otherwise. As they have repeatedly said themselves. Good point to bold and highlight in red. That's his opinion. I beg to differ. Maradonna's 'Hand of God' goal was also done in plain sight. Doesn't mean it's not cheating. Same goes here. If everyone else is playing by the rules and Red Bull say, "stick it, those rules have no regulatory value and we'll do what we damn well please", they're breaking the rules to gain an advantage. It's literally the textbook definition of cheating. Yes, and all other teams have followed the FIA and their rules when the problems have been encountered. Again, as i said, So, all three of my points are validated in that very autosport article you cherry picked to argue that I'm just trolling... good work.

anyway, there's a race this weekend. Renault have further updates... http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/9267211/Renault-We-re-getting-closer Considering the Red Bulls have been very close to the front anyway, and were not slow at the end of Bahrain GP, and China being low in terms of full throttle per lap, it will be interesting to see how the cheats go this weekend

what on earth are you talking about? The sensor was not faulty. If RBR could have demonstrated the sensor was faulty, how on earth could they have lost the appeal??? You don't think the sensor at the center of this dispute would have been thoroughly tested after the race??? I think it's time to stop believing the team's claim the sensor was faulty. And of course it's up to the governing body to police the use of the sensors rather than each individual team to decide what's right and wrong during the course of the race. That's the only fair way to get everyone playing by the same fuel flow parameters! The FIA and the manufacturer say faulty sensors are VERY obvious. It's not a thing to be disputed. If it was as dodgy as RBR claimed, the other teams would have jumped on board and lobbied against the meters as well. No-one would want to be disadvantaged by dodgy fuel flow meters. But the other teams are on the FIA's side - so you already have the answer to who's playing silly buggers.

yep, that's exactly what they were doing. Horner has repeatedly used the justification that with the correct offset applied they would have lost second place, even in the court submission. They certainly did it to gain an advantage. And they certainly broke the protocols every other team was following - to use offsets supplied by the FIA and make adjustments as necccesary during the race. They also broke the protocols about how/when to switch to the backup measurement method. And they broke the fuel flow limit repeatedly despite warnings and many chances to correct it during the race. And thier whole justification for doing so was that the 'rules' everyone else was playing by don't actually apply, and we'll do exactly as we please thankyou very much. Not a whole lot of acting fairly in there.

That's simply not the case. The meters are extremely precise. When they 'fail' the precision goes and is very easy to identify. This isn't the case with the RBR meter in question. RBR simply didn't like the offset they were given by the FIA because they couldn't hang onto 2nd place using the same amount of fuel as everyone else. No other team has supported RBR's position that the meters are complete arse and not good enough for the job, or argued with the FIA's offsets and processes. In fact most of them where there in court against RBR. The only major team missing was Ferrari, who no longer had a head honcho to send to court... RBR have been caught cheating. Plain and simple. The Tech guys thought so, the Stewards thought so, and the five independant judges of the Appeals Court think so.