djr81

Not a docco but usually worth a listen. http://www.abc.net.au/news/sport/programs/all-torque/

If only someone would tell us what the pharken spring rates are.

Actually Renault introduced pneumatic valve springs on their turbo motor. CSB.

Serisouly, its a fuel filter. Replace it now.

Is written on the springs - something like 0800 250 400 for an 8" long, 2.5" ID, 400lb (7.5kg/mm) spring for example. You can see it on the photo just not high resolution enough to read.

What spring rates are they Fatz?

Dont speak German - so what did he say last?

It depends on what is said in the briefing prior to the race. If they agree to it Reuteman style and then change their minds when it suits them then they deserve all the vitriol heaped upon them. Red Bull cant have not discussed it, surely? Just interested to see how the dynamic works for Tool now that he is the second quickest driver in the team. Kind of reduces your leverage that does. Atleast we dont have to go back to Ferrari style team orders.

Tool had better smarten his act up if he wants to be kept on as Dans #2 next year. Probably cost him a podium with that bullshit. McLaren - slowest of the Merc runners. Hope Honda has something special for next year.

Well you would think Alonso would be a bit more on it than Kimi but the margins are the worry. Alonso may be quicker than Kimi but not by those kind of margins.

Bloody good job by Dan - done Tool by half a second, now 3-1 to the Perth boy. Also wtf is going on with Britney? Homo is hosing him. Alonso is hosing Kimi too. Bit of a worry that. Troys boy done good in the Lotus too.

Dont be too hard on Maldanado all that Venezuelan coin is probably all that is keeping Lotus afloat.

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.

Too many books. Got that problem too.

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.

Is it fine in the sense that it doesnt mess with your coordination?

Any race car with sheep skin seat covers is good. One in Kermit green, with flares and a 351 is quite obviously the shit. Not sure how old the place is now. Would guess near on 20 years?

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/

I get the same. Navigating makes we want to puke, driving is fine. Something to do with seeing what youre body is feeling in terms of gees. When your head down reading notes you cannot see the horizon, obviously.Personally I can get sea sick in the bath tub. Only advice I can offer is eat a proper breakfast, stay hydrated and have a bag of lollies handy.

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?

GTR gearing is pretty tall. So you tend to find that on tight hillclimbs and supersprint courses, even certain corners on certain circuits) there are times where you are stuck between gears (eg 2nd too tall and first is too much fapping about) or the thing is off boost (say exiting a 3rd gear chicane). Shortening it up can help mean it gets on boost quicker or it is less compromised when you have to pluck a taller gear anyway. If I could be stuffed I would do a engine torque cascade graph where you multiply the torque by the gear & diff ratio and plot it againt road speed. It tells you how much powahs the car delivers.

Reckon that may be the epitaph for the 2014 season. On an unrelated topic I bough this: http://www.amazon.com/F1-Retro-1970-Mark-Hughes/dp/0957025521 Has some good stuff in it. The author is the editor of motorsport and he can write. He has interviewed a fair few of the survivors of that era, the likes of Ron Tauranac for example and gone through the cars/engines/drivers/racers and reviewed them from todays perpective. Makes for an interesting read - there is even some cfd analysis of the frontrunners from the era (although this isnt as good as you would think). Most of it is race reviews but there is stuff like a write up of Frank Williams and the De Tomaso effort, an interview with the Matra designer and other goodies. Anyway if you can get it for a reasonable price (or at all) I would recommend it.

2 seconds of googling turned this up. http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/porsche-critical-of-f1-fuel-flow-meter/

My textbook says that cheating requires deceipt. They were hardly hiding it from anyone, now were they? Ofcourse Redbull were unhappy about being asked to reduce their fuel flow. How could they be otherwise? It doesnt make the FIA numbers correct, however. Or their flowmeters good It is easy to comply with something when you have nothing to lose. Just as it is easy to carry on like a pork chop (eg Mercedes) when you have something to gain.

Looks like car performance is now based on the chook lotto of finding the right fluel flow meter. No wonder team are reportedly buying the thing by the box full just to get a good one. Thoroughly predictable outcome. FIA decides that the FIA is the one who decides things. Even when they are wrong or unless they defer to Ferrari like they agreed to.