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

Formula One: British lawmakers ask FIA to reconsider Bahrain race, putting 2012 and 2013 events in jeopardy

By: Quentin Spurring on 2/12/2012

The 2012 Bahraini Grand Prix looks so insecure that the latest attacks on its validity, including one by a group of British lawmakers, could be enough to force cancellation of the event.

The controversial Formula One race is scheduled for April 22. However, pressure on the FIA and Formula One Management (FOM) is increased by a regulation stating that any event that is canceled within 12 weeks of its scheduled date will be excluded from the following year's schedule. The deadline for this rule to apply to this race passed at the end of January. If the 2012 race is cancelled, FOM and the Bahraini promoter (effectively the royal family) would have to convince the FIA of their case for force majeure, equivalent to a natural disaster. Otherwise, they would also lose the 2013 event.

Civil unrest in the nation caused the cancellation of the April 2010 race after weeks of similar controversy. Efforts were made to reschedule it later in the season, but it was ultimately canceled in June after protests from some of the teams and their sponsors.

Various lobbying groups are campaigning against the race, notably the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, which last month called on the teams to implement a boycott. This week, members of the House of Lords joined with Caroline Lucas, a Green Party MP in the House of Commons, to write an open letter to the Times newspaper in London to express their concerns about the race.

The British politicians wrote: “We note with concern the decision by Formula One to go ahead with the race in Bahrain scheduled for April. The continued political crisis in Bahrain is a troubling source of instability in the Gulf region, and the lack of any move towards political reconciliation concerns those who wish to see Bahrain move in the direction of greater democratic accountability.

"It was hoped that the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) would provide a starting point for political reform which both government and opposition forces could agree upon. Two months on, we see an entrenchment of the positions of both sides, which risks letting more extreme voices dictate the progress of the conflict. Given the current dire situation, with daily street protests and the deaths of more civilians, we do not believe that the time is right for Formula One to return to Bahrain.

“Bahrain is a major trading hub and financial center in the Middle East, but this brings greater responsibility. Human rights and economic stability go hand in hand, and the government of Bahrain must do more to persuade international events and corporations that Bahrain is a stable place to do business. Until it takes concerted measures to reform the electoral, penal and judicial processes, international observers as well as ordinary Bahrainis can have little confidence that Bahrain is on the path to reform and political stability.

“We urge the FIA to reconsider its decision to continue with the race.”

Meanwhile, the ongoing civil unrest in the nation has created controversy directly connected to the Bahrain International Circuit, which is owned by the Sunni royal family. It has emerged that last year the management of the venue fired 29 members of the staff, most of them from the suppressed Shia majority, apparently for participating in antigovernment protests.

BIC announced last month that, as a reconciliatory gesture, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa was responding to a recommendation in a BICI report by reinstating all of them. The CEO of the circuit, Sheikh Salman bin Isa Al-Khalifa, said: "The reinstatement of our BIC colleagues is part of an important initiative towards national reconciliation and unity for the kingdom as a whole. I now look forward to working with all BIC colleagues to ensure that we continue to provide world-class track events, which every citizen of Bahrain can be proud to support."

But according to a report at arabianbusiness.com, only three people are actually back in their previous jobs. The Web site cannot say how many have simply refused the offer. Nabeel Rajab, the vice president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, said the offer was a cynical attempt to deflect the calls for a boycott of this year's race.

“I very strongly believe that this was just to get Formula One back,” Rajab said. “They should not have just reinstated those people; they should have launched an investigation. The staff don't know why they were sacked, and now they are expected to come back to work without answers.”

In the final analysis, this year's Bahraini Grand Prix will happen only if the big brands in F1--automobile manufacturers Ferrari, Lotus, Mercedes-Benz and Renault, specialists such as Caterham and Marussia, sponsors from diverse commercial sectors such as Kingfisher, Marlboro, Mobil, Petronas, Pirelli, Red Bull, Santander, Total, Virgin and Vodafone--are convinced that they will not damage their image by taking part.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120212/F1/120219965

they may as well cancel it anyway, because there's shit currently going down as we speak

and you just absolutely, absolutely know the disgruntled muzzas will show up to poop the party

Renault may not have the most powerful engine on the grid but, according to their F1 director, the company supplies teams with the most fuel efficient.

Having sold the final batch of shares in their F1 team to Genii Capital, Renault's role in Formula One is now solely as an engine supplier.

In that role the French company has excelled in recent seasons, winning back-to-back Championship doubles with Red Bull Racing in 2010 and 2011.

And, according to Jean François Caubet, Renault's F1 director, part of the secret to that success in their engine's fuel efficiency.

"The Mercedes engine is about 15hp more power than ours, so too does Ferrari offer more power," he told AS.

"But, as far as drivability and fuel economy go the Renault engine is out in front as we need less gas."

In fact, so much so that Caubet estimates that Red Bull Racing, the defending Champs, "can start races with 15 or 18 litres less fuel in the tank than their competition - and that makes the difference."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/7518314/-Renault-power-needs-less-gas-

interesting bit of logic there.

Edited by tweety bird

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...