Formula One 2014

[djr81]

I started reading the Colin Chapman - Lotus book the other day. He was a hard man!

http://www.bookdepository.com/Colin-Chapman-Gerard-Crombac/9781859608449

Apparently Jabby Crombac knew him pretty well. Where did you find your copy?

Was never a fan of his engineering methodology, however. Good on the innovation, less so on nailing something together that didnt break.

Was also thinking ablout the Haynes manuals for the Lotus 72 & McLaren M23. Has anyone seen if they are any good?

[Roy]

Apparently Jabby Crombac knew him pretty well. Where did you find your copy?

Got mine from http://www.pitstop.net.au/products/colin-chapman--the-man-and-his-cars/

Also paid a small fortune for mint condition, original print, signed copy in English of On the Starting Grid, by Paul Frere. Don't care if its not great read...its just COOL!!!! But don't doubt i will enjoy the tales

[djr81]

Cheers Troy, Ill get on it.

For the price this is worth a look.

http://www.pitstop.net.au/products/sauber-mercedes-c9--return-of-the-silver-arrows/

[Roy]

I like the tales from yesteryear. Everything was just so much more accessible...and personal. Need to win lotto just so i have time to read the books i have

[dezz]

If it was Ferrari in RBR's position with the fuel flow saga, you'd all want them disqualified from the 2014 WCC/WDC.

[wolverine]

If it was Ferrari we would be amazed that they had been caught in the first place....

[hrd-hr30]

LOL, FI, STR are lucky in that theirs outright failing means they divert to the engine parameters/fuel rail etc whilst the meter was performing. Bets put a kill switch or fusible link in that power cable

Most likely teams have worked out by now the way around the meters and are either bench testing units and only installing the optimum ones. Remember the tolerance is + / - so imagine the holy grail is the one that reads a tad low and they get that .5% or 3-5hp extra

Oh no, not three to five hp extra!!!!!!! That's sure to make a monumental difference to cars with a total of about 760bhp.

It's an absolute lottery as to who will be fast every race!

Edited April 16, 2014 by hrd-hr30

[Roy]

Errrrrummmmm.... that 3-5hp difference that the FIA dont know about. So easily play with boost etc to make it how they want. So that is the possibility of making an extra 3-5 hp legally just by changing meter!

If you have a 70hp deficit like the Renaults are talked to have had at Malaysia then dont you want all the power you can get?

And thats for when the meter is working in its window of accuracy. When they are out by 1-2% it can easily be 15hp!!! If you are giving away power to Mercedes to start with that is going to further hurt the Renault and Ferrari runners even more!!!

Anyway...

[hrd-hr30]

you have the numbers way wrong. 1-2% is miles off:

52% of meter's manufactured are within 0.1% accuracy

92% of meters manufactured are within 0.25% accuracy

So no, it cannot "easily be 15hp!!!"

Edited April 17, 2014 by hrd-hr30

[djr81]

you have the numbers way wrong. 1-2% is miles off:

52% of meter's manufactured are within 0.1% accuracy

92% of meters manufactured are within 0.25% accuracy

So no, it cannot "easily be 15hp!!!"

From Autosport, mostly because I know how much you enjoy red highlights.

Red Bull appeal: Newey says FIA sensor would've cost second place

By Edd Straw Monday, April 14th 2014, 10:29 GMT

Daniel Ricciardo would not have been able to finish second in the Australian Grand Prix had Red Bull adhered to the FIA's Formula 1 fuel-flow sensor, Adrian Newey has admitted.

Giving evidence during Monday's FIA Court of Appeal hearing in Paris, Red Bull has claimed that what it described as inaccurate fuel-flow sensor readings were costing it around 0.4 seconds per lap in Melbourne.

Ricciardo finished second before being disqualified for "consistently" exceeding the maximum permitted fuel-flow rate of 100kg/h, but after being warned by FIA head of powertrain Fabrice Lom about this during the race, the team did reduce it from laps 8-16.

The resulting loss in performance, combined with the fact that Red Bull believed the sensor not to be giving accurate readings, meant that the team opted to switch to its own fuel-flow model.

"When Mr Lom approached us and said that he felt we were using too much fuel, we disagreed with that," said Newey, Red Bull's chief technical officer.

"No team wants to court controversy and then defend itself, so if you can comply with those wishes even if you don't agree with them, then that's what you do and that's exactly what we did.

"The fact is, it then became evident that if we continued to comply, we would lose positions."

PROBLEMS ON FRIDAY

Red Bull contends that the fuel-flow sensor was unreliable because it had registered different readings with identical engine settings during Ricciardo's first three runs during Friday's opening practice session and the final run.

The team confirmed that it had received no explanation for this change, although Lom is "highly confident" that the data it was giving during Friday afternoon practice and the race was correct.

"The fuel-flow measurement as we began first practice appeared to be in good correlation with what we estimated would be delivered by the fuel injectors," said Red Bull's chief engineer for car engineering Paul Monaghan.

"Without an explanation and without any characteristic changes to the engine, be they measured or inferred by performance or measured by laptime, the FFM [sensor] changed its reading for P1 run four," said Monaghan.

"So we are left with two values for the sensor and no explanation was offered at the time as to why the sensor would change its value."

After using a second sensor during Saturday's running, which did not deliver any signal, the FIA ordered Red Bull to fit the original sensor and, using the appropriate offset, stick to the fuel limit.

Following this first increase in readings, Newey claimed that there was a second step during the race, with the fuel-flow sensor reading a further half-a-per-cent high.

"We see this jump at around lap 38 from around the 1.3 per cent mark to around the 1.8 per cent mark," said Newey.

"It was completely unexplainable from our point of view."

However, Lom disputes this interpretation of the data, saying "I don't see this step".

Red Bull contends that it did not exceed the maximum fuel-flow, and that it was justified in switching to its own fuel-flow model because the technical directive that states this can only be done under instruction from the FIA is not of regulatory value.

[Roy]

LOL...yep. I did read that the FIA offsets have included some rather wayward % too!

[Aggroman]

Harry doesnt like RBR, its okay we get it. Now please shutup and inciting a riot

Saying they ignored the rules blah blah blah, if you were a multi million dollar company with shareholders etc. You would be going for evey 0.1% you can get because thats how F1 is, 15hp 5hp can make or break your race and thats not bullshit. some margins are 0.1 second if you were 5hp down over a 2 minute lap well you cna fkn bet thats more than 0.1 second.

Sure if they were our shitboxes you wouldnt feel it but its not its the best drivers going for every cm so please stop carrying on (yes im picking on you because you come across as the instigator here)

The discussion has been had

/fin

[djr81]

Too many books. Got that problem too.

Edited April 17, 2014 by djr81

[hrd-hr30]

two VERY diferent things there. Roy's saying you gain this extra 15 horsepower by carefully selecting your meter from a big stockpile you buy to find the most friendly unit. Get one that's 1.3% out and you get an FIA offset to correct it, not a free 15bhp extra! It's complete nonsense.

lol at Newey's justification of a reading jump at lap 38 meaning the sensor was inaccurate! They'd already switched to their own fuel flow model from lap 16 FFS! Apparently well before it was broken... http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113447

Edited April 17, 2014 by hrd-hr30

[Roy]

DJ...kick ass library!

hrd...That's not what I said. But nice try. Anyway...Lets see if Renault can live up to their talk of a far more promising weekend for their power units.

Big weekend of motorsport

[djr81]

Well Merc at the top after FP2. Surprise is Alonso is up there. Dan faster than Tool again.

Going to make the call that Kyvat looks like he can drive pretty well too.

[Scottydoo]

Don't forget about Faildanado showing his class again haha

Look on the pit crews face watching the replay of him hitting the wall was priceless

[sh@un]

It's an absolute lottery as to who will be fast every race!

Merc seem to be doing a pretty good job of making everyone else's race weekend hard this year...

[hrd-hr30]

hrd...That's not what I said. But nice try. Anyway...Lets see if Renault can live up to their talk of a far more promising weekend for their power units.

didn't realised you'd changed topic from what you were saying about using 'happy' meters to gain power back to red bull in Aus.

You've got it wrong anyway. You're quoting RBR's media spin. Here's what came out in the court: http://thejudge13.com/2014/04/14/a-day-in-the-f1-appeal-court-sifting-the-evidence/

Red Bull’s beef was not that they were penalized 0.4 seconds per lap, rather that the shift from 1.2 to 1.3 in the offset demonstrated the sensor was not fit for purpose. This in fact would be a shift of 8% in the prescribed maximum flow allowed by the FIA – which would result in a reduced lap time of 0.03 seconds (8% of 0.4).

So the sensor according to Red Bull is now not fit for purpose – not inaccurate by 0.03 seconds per lap – was the call. Throw the baby out with the bath water and reclaim the entire time for the 1.2 offset ie 0.4 seconds per lap.

As I said before, it's time to stop believing Red Bull.

[wolverine]

F1 app P1 and P2 results have Hamilton and Rosberg listed as driving for McLaren