djr81

Dont be too hard on Maldanado all that Venezuelan coin is probably all that is keeping Lotus afloat.

Well Merc at the top after FP2. Surprise is Alonso is up there. Dan faster than Tool again. Going to make the call that Kyvat looks like he can drive pretty well too.

Too many books. Got that problem too.

From Autosport, mostly because I know how much you enjoy red highlights. Red Bull appeal: Newey says FIA sensor would've cost second place By Edd Straw Monday, April 14th 2014, 10:29 GMT Daniel Ricciardo would not have been able to finish second in the Australian Grand Prix had Red Bull adhered to the FIA's Formula 1 fuel-flow sensor, Adrian Newey has admitted. Giving evidence during Monday's FIA Court of Appeal hearing in Paris, Red Bull has claimed that what it described as inaccurate fuel-flow sensor readings were costing it around 0.4 seconds per lap in Melbourne. Ricciardo finished second before being disqualified for "consistently" exceeding the maximum permitted fuel-flow rate of 100kg/h, but after being warned by FIA head of powertrain Fabrice Lom about this during the race, the team did reduce it from laps 8-16. The resulting loss in performance, combined with the fact that Red Bull believed the sensor not to be giving accurate readings, meant that the team opted to switch to its own fuel-flow model. "When Mr Lom approached us and said that he felt we were using too much fuel, we disagreed with that," said Newey, Red Bull's chief technical officer. "No team wants to court controversy and then defend itself, so if you can comply with those wishes even if you don't agree with them, then that's what you do and that's exactly what we did. "The fact is, it then became evident that if we continued to comply, we would lose positions." PROBLEMS ON FRIDAY Red Bull contends that the fuel-flow sensor was unreliable because it had registered different readings with identical engine settings during Ricciardo's first three runs during Friday's opening practice session and the final run. The team confirmed that it had received no explanation for this change, although Lom is "highly confident" that the data it was giving during Friday afternoon practice and the race was correct. "The fuel-flow measurement as we began first practice appeared to be in good correlation with what we estimated would be delivered by the fuel injectors," said Red Bull's chief engineer for car engineering Paul Monaghan. "Without an explanation and without any characteristic changes to the engine, be they measured or inferred by performance or measured by laptime, the FFM [sensor] changed its reading for P1 run four," said Monaghan. "So we are left with two values for the sensor and no explanation was offered at the time as to why the sensor would change its value." After using a second sensor during Saturday's running, which did not deliver any signal, the FIA ordered Red Bull to fit the original sensor and, using the appropriate offset, stick to the fuel limit. Following this first increase in readings, Newey claimed that there was a second step during the race, with the fuel-flow sensor reading a further half-a-per-cent high. "We see this jump at around lap 38 from around the 1.3 per cent mark to around the 1.8 per cent mark," said Newey. "It was completely unexplainable from our point of view." However, Lom disputes this interpretation of the data, saying "I don't see this step". Red Bull contends that it did not exceed the maximum fuel-flow, and that it was justified in switching to its own fuel-flow model because the technical directive that states this can only be done under instruction from the FIA is not of regulatory value.

Is it fine in the sense that it doesnt mess with your coordination?

Any race car with sheep skin seat covers is good. One in Kermit green, with flares and a 351 is quite obviously the shit. Not sure how old the place is now. Would guess near on 20 years?

Cheers Troy, Ill get on it. For the price this is worth a look. http://www.pitstop.net.au/products/sauber-mercedes-c9--return-of-the-silver-arrows/

I get the same. Navigating makes we want to puke, driving is fine. Something to do with seeing what youre body is feeling in terms of gees. When your head down reading notes you cannot see the horizon, obviously.Personally I can get sea sick in the bath tub. Only advice I can offer is eat a proper breakfast, stay hydrated and have a bag of lollies handy.

Apparently Jabby Crombac knew him pretty well. Where did you find your copy?Was never a fan of his engineering methodology, however. Good on the innovation, less so on nailing something together that didnt break. Was also thinking ablout the Haynes manuals for the Lotus 72 & McLaren M23. Has anyone seen if they are any good?

GTR gearing is pretty tall. So you tend to find that on tight hillclimbs and supersprint courses, even certain corners on certain circuits) there are times where you are stuck between gears (eg 2nd too tall and first is too much fapping about) or the thing is off boost (say exiting a 3rd gear chicane). Shortening it up can help mean it gets on boost quicker or it is less compromised when you have to pluck a taller gear anyway. If I could be stuffed I would do a engine torque cascade graph where you multiply the torque by the gear & diff ratio and plot it againt road speed. It tells you how much powahs the car delivers.

Reckon that may be the epitaph for the 2014 season. On an unrelated topic I bough this: http://www.amazon.com/F1-Retro-1970-Mark-Hughes/dp/0957025521 Has some good stuff in it. The author is the editor of motorsport and he can write. He has interviewed a fair few of the survivors of that era, the likes of Ron Tauranac for example and gone through the cars/engines/drivers/racers and reviewed them from todays perpective. Makes for an interesting read - there is even some cfd analysis of the frontrunners from the era (although this isnt as good as you would think). Most of it is race reviews but there is stuff like a write up of Frank Williams and the De Tomaso effort, an interview with the Matra designer and other goodies. Anyway if you can get it for a reasonable price (or at all) I would recommend it.

2 seconds of googling turned this up. http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/porsche-critical-of-f1-fuel-flow-meter/

My textbook says that cheating requires deceipt. They were hardly hiding it from anyone, now were they? Ofcourse Redbull were unhappy about being asked to reduce their fuel flow. How could they be otherwise? It doesnt make the FIA numbers correct, however. Or their flowmeters good It is easy to comply with something when you have nothing to lose. Just as it is easy to carry on like a pork chop (eg Mercedes) when you have something to gain.

Looks like car performance is now based on the chook lotto of finding the right fluel flow meter. No wonder team are reportedly buying the thing by the box full just to get a good one. Thoroughly predictable outcome. FIA decides that the FIA is the one who decides things. Even when they are wrong or unless they defer to Ferrari like they agreed to.

Good trolling Harry. This is what Autosport had to say: The FIA Court of Appeal's hearing of Red Bull's attempt to overturn Daniel Ricciardo's disqualification from the Australian Grand Prix was a test case for Formula 1's new fuel-efficiency regulations. By rejecting it, the court ensures the viability of the fuel-flow sensor to police both the 100kg/h maximum fuel flow and the 100kg-per-race fuel allowance. As the FIA's legal representative, Jonathan Taylor argued, competition cannot be allowed to become the "wild west". That does not mean Red Bull's appeal was frivolous. While the media is not privy to the written testimony and data, based on yesterday's six-hour hearing in Paris, there are grounds to believe Red Bull did not exceed the fuel-flow limit. It was crucial to Red Bull's case to be able to prove this with certainty. This was difficult given data gathered from the fuel rail on which the injectors are mounted still needs to be run through software to calculate the flow rate. You can understand why Red Bull wanted to rely on its own, likely more accurate data. This was not a case of cheating, because it was done in plain sight. But it was a clear challenge to the policing of the regulations. These ultrasonic sensors are new technology. While measuring flow in stable conditions is relatively straightforward, to do so instantaneously in a moving car under demanding conditions is not. The FIA has established a calibration protocol and the error bars are big enough to ensure that only clear cases of going over the fuel-flow limit as measured by the meters are punished. In the long-term, the technology does need to improve to be as precise as is required for F1. All teams have encountered problems and there are discrepancies between their own data and what the sensors say. It's tempting to cast Red Bull as the bad guy in all this, trying to pull a fast one. But it had a legitimate case and the hearing cast light on the current state of this technology. No verifiable reason was given for why the fuel-flow meter it used during the race in Australia had started reading higher than before after the first three runs of free practice two. And as Red Bull's legal team pointed out, the sensor in question was in the possession of the FIA but without any subsequent testing to understand exactly why there was this difference. All of this points to more analysis and development being necessary because there are question marks about just how level this playing field is and whether race results will be distorted by the accuracy of any given sensor. For now, while the sensors are not perfect, they are necessary. It's not ideal, but self-policing is even more dangerous. This is why the verdict was probably the best one for F1

Mercedes-AMG lawyer Paul Harris told the appeal he believed Red Bull should face a stiffer punishment as their offence was worse than that of the now defunct BAR-Honda team, who in 2005 were found to have used two hidden fuel tanks inside their main fuel tank. Who are they kidding?

http://www.speedcafe.com/2014/04/14/brabham-secures-maiden-indy-lights-podium/

Pretty ordinary effort really. Why are Merc involved in it all anyway?

Just for other random people reading this: See the image above. The spring (preloaded by the variable length actuator rod) is there to hold the wastegate shut. By shortening the actuator rod you increase the load on the spring and therefore the wastegate stays shut for longer/under more pressure, all else being equal. Air under pressure to the diaphragm on the actuator works to open the wastegate. If you are running a bleed valve reducing the air to the actuator will give you more boost as there isn’t as much air flow/pressure to oppose the spring and open the wastegate. If you are running an electronic boost controller surely the last thing you want to do is reduce the amount of air supplied to the controller – simply because controlling airflow is the controllers job. The Blitz is a dual solenoid type which should easilly allow a sufficient range of airflow to work over a 22lb setup. Maybe it isnt the case for a single solenoid type and people put a restictor down stream of it but to my addled brain that is a dodgy way of fixing the problem and would surely reduce the boost controllers responsiveness? What I am guessing is happening in this case is that there isn’t enough air going through the solenoids to oppose a larger spring force - either because it has shit the biscuit or blocked with something. Hence insufficient preload can be applied to the actuators/spring to hold it shut at 22lb or insufficient air flow provided to open them up. (Choose your preferred failure mode). Hence I can only get a rather indifferent 16lb. Anyway fingers crossed a new solenoid will fix the problem.

Um dumps are shiney Tomei items (Well they were shiney once). Rest of system is 3.5 inch. Cant remember what was downstream of the dump pipes but they were round & stainless. Point is car will run to 22lb just not on the boost controller.

Well either that or there isnt enough air pressure/flow to work with them. Can you get different springs for the HKS actuators?

Has HKS actuators. I was told I needed to replace the stockers which I did. Still no more boost.

Yeah was hoping to price just the pinion & crown wheel. Glad you can hose stuff off the line. Went to a supersprint in Busselton (On the rally stage) last weekend. 5.5k plus clutch dump = humiliating fail of a motor bogging down to 2k.

Yeah seems high. Think I will have to order a new solenoid to eliminate that from the list of possibilities. Appears to be most likely.

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Businesses/Advertising_and_marketing/Advertising.page Is bait and switch advertising legal? Bait and switch advertising involves advertising a small number of goods at low prices to entice customers to your business. When the advertised goods quickly run out, customers are switched to higher-priced goods. It is an offence to advertise goods for sale knowing that you will be unable to supply those goods for a reasonable period. You are responsible for ensuring that there are enough supplies available to cover a sale. You still may not be able to meet the demand during a sale but you should have at least planned for it and have reasonable stock or offers available. This is not just common sense, it’s the law. What is reasonable will depend on the type of product, the context of any advertisement and your previous trading experience. The period of offer should also be made clear in the advertisement. If an offer is available for a limited period then put this in the advertisement. If stocks are genuinely limited, such as a clearance sale, say so in the advertisement. When you can’t meet the demand, you may offer to supply the advertised item to customers at a later date eg. a ‘raincheck’. This generally avoids customer dissatisfaction as well as indicating that the advertising was genuine. Alternatively, you can supply equivalent goods immediately and at the advertised price if the customer accepts.