Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

i logged in this morning to see.

Michael Schumacher quickest on day two at Jerez with 2011 Mercedes F1 car

............... no way.

Michael Schumacher set the pace on the second day's testing at Jerez as Mark Webber led the way for Red Bull in F1's 2012-spec cars.Schumacher,

driving last year's Mercedes W02 in full trim so that the team could gain as much information about Pirelli's 2012 tyres from a stable platform, set a 1m18.561s

lap during the morning that no one came close to beating for the rest of the day.

Webber's time also came in the morning as much of the paddock chose to focus on longer runs in the afternoon.

The Australian's 1m19.184s would remain the fastest time anyone has set in one of the new cars brought to Spain this week.

Daniel Ricciardo impressed in the Toro Rosso, going third fastest in the STR7, having completed 100 laps of fairly trouble-free running. He set his best time around the same period as his

compatriot when the track conditions appeared to be at their best.

Jules Bianchi began his Force India career with a fine fourth fastest in the VJM05 before handing over to Paul di Resta for the afternoon and the Scot would complete 69 laps in that time to set

the sixth fastest lap behind yesterday's fastest man Kimi Raikkonen.

The Finn had a couple of offs today in the Lotus. The first came early in the morning when he ran wide at Dry Sack and required a new plank. He then had another excursion very late in the day

as he found the limits of this generation of cars.

He still managed 117 laps, and also got to try out a different steering rack after he found yesterday's one not to his liking.

Ferrari was again far from the top of the timesheet, and late in the day was employing flow-vis to study the effects of aero over Fellipe Massa's rear wing. The Brazilian's time of 1m20.454s was 1.893s off the top time.

Jenson Button was eighth quickest in the McLaren, and like Ferrari, was not seeking any headline performance as it worked on improving the MP4-27.

Sauber's Sergio Perez was tenth in the Sauber ahead of Pastor Maldonado, who spent the day working on reliability with the Williams FW34.

Heikki Kovalainen was slowest of the drivers equipped with 2012 machinery but completed a whopping 139 laps for Caterham as he gathered plenty of information.

Pedro de la Rosa completed HRT's running by setting a 1m22.128s, just 0.618s off the pace of Kovalainen.

Today's timesPos Driver Team Time Laps 1. Michael Schumacher Mercedes 1m18.561s 132

2. Mark Webber Red Bull 1m19.184s + 0.623 97

3. Daniel Ricciardo Toro Rosso 1m19.587s + 1.026 100

4. Jules Bianchi Force India 1m20.221s + 1.660 46

5. Kimi Raikkonen Lotus 1m20.239s + 1.678 117

6. Paul di Resta Force India 1m20.272s + 1.711 69

7. Felipe Massa Ferrari 1m20.454s + 1.893 95

8. Jenson Button McLaren 1m20.688s + 2.127 85

9. Sergio Perez Sauber 1m20.711s + 2.150 68

10. Pastor Maldonado Williams 1m21.197s + 2.636 97

11. Heikki Kovalainen Caterham 1m21.518s + 2.957 139

12. Pedro de la Rosa HRT 1m22.128s + 3.567 64

All Timing Unofficial

:unsure:

All Timing Unofficial

i see. :rolleyes:

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/97417

Edited by tweety bird
<br />So.<br /><br />Sky sport in australia? No dice?<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Yeah so what is the deal here??<br /><br />Is ONEHD's contract with the BBC now null and void given that Sky Sports now has the live rights (well mostly, I don't really understand this crack-pot scenario)... Does that mean foxtel is an inevitable requirement?? Edited by Marco-R34GTT

Ok, the timing app STILL isnt available from the itunes store. What a truly shit go that is, must have something to do with all the Vodafone logo's on it.

I've emailed OneHD about coverage, will relay their reply if I get one

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

    • I think you're really missing the point. The spec is just the minimum spec that the fuel has to meet. The additive packages can, and do, go above that minimum if the fuel brand feels they need/want to. And so you get BP Ultimate or Shell Ultra (or whatever they call it) making promises to clean your engine better than the standard stuff....simply because they do actually put better additive packages in there. They do not waste special sauce on the plebian fuel if they can avoid it. I didn't say "energy density". I just said "density". That's right, the specific gravity (if you want to use a really shit old imperial description for mass per unit volume). The density being higher indicates a number of things, from reduces oxygen content, to increased numbers of double bonds or cyclic components. That then just happens to flow on to the calorific value on a volume basis being correspondingly higher. The calorific value on a mass basis barely changes, because almost all hydrocarbon materials have a very similar CV per kg. But whatever - the end result is that you do get a bit more energy per litre, which helps to offset some of the sting of the massive price bump over 91. I can go you one better than "I used to work at a fuel station". I had uni lecturers who worked at the Pt Stanvac refinery (at the time they were lecturing, as industry specialist lecturers) who were quite candid about the business. And granted, that was 30+ years ago, and you might note that I have stated above that I think the industry has since collected together near the bottom (quite like ISPs, when you think about it). Oh, did I mention that I am quite literally a combustion engineer? I'm designing (well, actually, trying to avoid designing and trying to make the junior engineer do it) a heavy fuel oil firing system for a cement plant in fricking Iraq, this week. Last week it was natural gas fired this-that. The week before it was LPG fired anode furnaces for a copper smelter (well, the burners for them, not the actual furnaces, which are just big dumb steel). I'm kinda all over fuels.
    • Well my freshly rebuilt RB25DET Neo went bang 1000kms in, completely fried big end bearing in cylinder 1 so bad my engine seized. No knocking or oil pressure issue prior to this happening, all happened within less than a second. Had Nitto oil pump, 8L baffled sump, head drain, oil restrictors, the lot put in to prevent me spinning a bearing like i did to need the rebuild. Mechanic that looked after the works has no idea what caused it. Reckoned it may have been bearing clearance wrong in cylinder 1 we have no idea. Machinist who did the work reckoned it was something on the mechanic. Anyway thats between them, i had no part in it, just paid the money Curiosity question, does the oil system on RB’s go sump > oil pump > filter > around engine? If so, if you had a leak on an oil filter relocation plate, say sump > oil pump > filter > LEAK > around engine would this cause a low oil pressure reading if the sensors was before the filter?   TIA
    • But I think you missed mine.. there is also nothing about the 98 spec that supports your claim..  according to the fuel standards, it can be identical to 95, just very slightly higher octane number. But the ulp vs pulp fuel regulations go show 95 (or 98), is not just 91 with some additives. any claim of ‘refined by the better refineries’ or ‘higher quality fuel’ is just hearsay.  I have never seen anything to back up such claims other than ‘my mate used to work for a fuel station’, or ‘drove a fuel delivery truck’, or ‘my mechanic says’.. the actual energy densities do slightly vary between the 3 grades of fuel, but the difference is very minor. That said, I am very happy to be proven wrong if anyone has some hard evidence..
    • Hey guys I’m chasing a Rb20det complete or bare block need a good running engine as mine has low comp 
    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
×
×
  • Create New...