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

mixing up "your" and "you're" is THE MOST ANNOYING EVER

closely followed by their / they're and worse / worst

your obviously the worse of them all and shouldn't be complaining about there problems.

Ugh! The Merc..... NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Meh, Button it is....

Btw, these piddly rear wings still piss me off, the proportion of the cars is still f*cked... FIA what have you done??

Well, Kimi and Romain not off to a great first day of second testing. Chassis is defective :( Oh well, at least Dan is looking quick. :thumbsup:

Lotus F1 team pulls out of Barcelona test due to chassis problems

Lotus has pulled out of the Barcelona test with immediate effect as a result of the problems it encountered with its chassis this morning.

The team has decided to abandon running in order to fully understand the problem with the chassis that manifested itself on chassis 2, which ran for the first time today.

This is despite chassis 1 completing the full Jerez test two weeks ago. The team said the problem requires modification to both chassis.

The car completed 1788 km of testing at Jerez, but the problem manifested itself at the higher-speed Barcelona configuration.

"Before we were due to fly chassis E20-01 out to Barcelona in replacement of chassis E20-02 - damaged this morning - we ran a series of simulations at the factory based on the data provided by our brief

running on track today," said technical director James Allison.

"As a result, we were able to identify an area which requires some additional work. It will be more productive for us to carry out these modifications to both chassis at Enstone rather than send E20-01 out to this

week's test. We'll put the right measures in place and we will be able to fix the problem before next week."

Team boss Eric Boullier added: "Not running this week has been a tough decision to take, but we feel that our choice is the right one. On the positive side, we have quickly identified the issue with the chassis

and our design office has already devised a solution. We will be present at next week's test in Barcelona.

"We draw faith from the fact that the E20 was quick out of the box in Jerez and showed its reliability there. We have a lot of work ahead of us over the next week but everyone at Enstone is ready for this challenge."

Although the team has not revealed the exact nature of the chassis fault, AUTOSPORT understands it is in an area towards the front of the car.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/97616

bad news

France is still on track to return to the Formula One calendar, according to the country's sports minister David Douillet.

The country last hosted a F1 race in 2008 at Magny-Cours, but negotiations about reviving the grand prix have been underway for several months now.

Reports in January suggested that the grand prix could be staged as early as September 2013.

Although news about the race has gone quiet since then, Douillet insists that the French GP "is not dead".

In an interview with TF1, Douillet said: "We will have three French drivers in F1 so we have to have French Grand Prix. It is my role to make sure we have a grand prix in France."

The race will reportedly be staged at the Paul Ricard circuit and France will alternate with the Belgian GP for a period of 10 years.

"I met Bernie Ecclestone and he was willing to share the grand prix between Belgium and France. He has mobilised and motivated local governments for the financing of the event," said Douillet.

"We have yet to really put ourselves in agreement with our Belgian friends ((including the promoter of the Belgian GP Etienne Davignon) and there are also some details with one or two cities about finances. We are almost there."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/7533607/French-GP-return-still-on-course

day 2, Hulkenberg's on top.

Times

1. N Hulkenberg Force India 1:22.608 112 laps

2. S Perez Sauber 1:22.648 +0.040 85

3. S Vettel Red Bull 1:22.891 +0.283 104

5. F Alonso Ferrari 1:23.180 +0.572 87

5. D Ricciardo Toro Rosso 1:23.639 +1.031 50

6. L Hamilton McLaren 1:23.806 +1.198 120

7. N Rosberg Mercedes 1:24.555 +1.947 82

8. V Bottas Williams 1:25.738 +3.250 117

9. V Petrov Caterham 1:26.605 +3.997 69

10. C Pic Marussia 1:28.092 +5.484 108

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

    • When I need something else to edit, I use Movavi. A friend who does video editing on a daily basis recommended me) it's an easy video cutter to use for beginners
    • I need to edit some videos for work but I'm not good at all this. Which video editor can you recommend?
    • 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..
×
×
  • Create New...