Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

As usual i dont take any notice of pace until Q2. Everything up until then is just strategy!

I agree,

but this has to be one of the closest practice sessions so far this year with less than a second covering the top 12.

force india must be happy so far this weekend. 2 cars in the top 10 in second practice

I would expect BMW to be closer to the front come qualifying

Looking good. Great to see Webber ahead of Trulli. Great to see Alonso up the front, and great to see McLaren could only get 5 & 6. LOL, the more they stuff around in the pack the more credence the stories about Alonso's contribution to the McLaren team. Especially with Alonso an Renault getting quicker.

Will be interesting to see what happens in the race with fuelling

wow, Renault DID make gains, well done Piquet and especially FA

BMW should have done a lot better than what the did, Kubica once again has no juice in the tank

I get the impression Hammo still cant handle his own car setup at all. He seems to be the only car to consistantly slide turn 7 and 10 and the ITV idiots for one reason or another praise his ability to hold the oversteer.

i got money on you kimi, dont let alonso push you around into the first turn

Alonso must've been right on it to get that kinda time...

Be good for the Spanish to see their hometown hero get on the front row..

Again, reiterating what most others are saying... Louise ftl... Useless without input from an experienced teammate..

Heidfeld should be good here, esp if the BMW's can get a good lick of speed on the main straight...

Hopefully RBR come up with the goods, and hopefully the Newey penned car is slippery in a straight line...

i think for every year fernando is in formula 1, his self confessed omniscient presence must have some kind of performance gain that doubles every year... Renault are just now reaping those rewards

all very easliy explained you see

Big fat loads of bollocks to you Ivan, lol!

yeah i remember, hes worth 0.6 seconds to the team...so in reality, if we added up all the years hes been competing, he should be able to make any car go 4 seconds faster!

Shit, even force India could win a race with him at the wheel!

Edited by m3gtr

Ive been thinking about this for half an hour now and i still dont get it...

Either their RIDICULOUSLY light for the start or they found this time in spite of the fact it has taken teams years to bridge these gaps...years in comparison to Renault finding that time in 2 frickin weeks...

I smell mass damper bullshit again!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...