Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Daniel Ricciardo is the Toro Rosso driver leading the race to step up to Red Bull next season, according to his team boss Franz Tost.


Earlier this month, Red Bull advisor Helmut Marko gave his support to Ricciardo, saying he is the "better" driver to replace Mark Webber should the 36-year-old leave at the end of this season.


Ricciardo has proven to be Toro Rosso's best driver in the opening stint of this year's Championship, scoring seven points to Jean-Eric Vergne's one.


Added to that, the 23-year-old has also outqualified his team-mate four out of five times while also securing the team's only top-ten grid position of the campaign.


"Well, performance is all that matters and you definitely can see that Daniel with 11 races more under his belt - which is more than half of a season - is probably in a better situation," Tost told the official F1 website.


"Right now he has the upper hand, which we have seen in Barcelona. But that is a snapshot right now. Generally I would say that both would fit into the Red Bull concept."


However, the team boss has mixed feelings about whether either driver is ready for the job.


"At the moment I would answer with a 'yes and no'.


"Both would have to demonstrate an exceptionally good second half of the season, because don't forget we are speaking about the World Champions, so the requirement profile is quite different to being with a team like Toro Rosso.


"But don't get me wrong, both are on a very good path and everything will depend on the next couple of months as to whether one of the two of them - should the need be there - qualify for Red Bull Racing."



http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/8715788/Tost-Ricciardo-topping-the-list



more good news!


New twin turbo v6 NSX sounds a bit cooler. Actually having said that, wasnt there a new NSX in the works with electric front drive and mechanical rear drive? What ever happened to that? Lol

coming 2015!

Honda could supply a second or even a third team when they return to Formula One in 2015 as their deal with McLaren is "not exclusive".

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/8717061/-McLaren-Honda-deal-is-not-exclusive-

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107462

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking something more tacky, maybe something like a Carla Zampatti Laser.

So we've had the Williams-Renault / Senna revival

Now Martin needs to get Bruno's management on the phone sharpish so we can have the McLaren-Honda / Senna re-up for twenny-fifteen...

you want them to lose that badly?

:rolleyes:

I don't think it will be "crank it up" in the old 80s sense of the turbo cars. I don't know the details, but I suspect boost will be static, leaving ignition and fuel mapping to be tinkered. Pretty much like the cars of today, plus theres that bigger percentage of power delivered by kers.

Dead right but, they won't be throwing fuel out the exhaust just cause fans want it.

The only limit on the new engines is basically fuel. They are only allowed to carry a certain amount of fuel and it means they will have to be pretty conservative with boost and power if they want to make it to the end of the race. Hopefully they will hot them up to serious power then turn them down for economy but at points of the race lean on it for more power and speed...strategies will be interesting

So they are regulated to 15000rpm, and a specific fuel flow rate for 2014.

Whoever makes the most efficient engine that can run the most air for the specific amount of fuel wins. Lots of lean burn work going on I guess.

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...