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

That's because they didn't show him on airtime at all for whatever reason, had a reasonable race by the looks of it!

Reasonable race overall, lots of stuff ups still with penalties and pit issues.

Also interesting to see the RBR team with a clear issue with the front nose cone.

No-one seriously hurt I trust.

Glad the fire didn't start during the race.

Someone at the celebratory dinner has got to say, "Pass da pasta Pastor"

From best previous performance of 8th > 1st now is great news & great driving.

williams-fire-4_2764349.jpg

williams-fire-3_2764347.jpg

williams-fire-5_2764352.jpg

williams-fire-6_2764354.jpg

Williams-fire-7_2764375.jpg

Williams-fire_2764377.jpg

Williams-fire-2_2764395.jpg

Williams-fire-3_2764398.jpg

Williams-fire-5_2764402.jpg

Williams-fire-6_2764405.jpg

Williams-fire_2764419.jpg

Williams working to determine cause of fire, FIA says 31 people treated in total

It is so far confirmed only nine members were from F1 teams but other team personnel were understood to be involved.

Caterham said four of its members had been taken to the medical centre for examination, while another Force India mechanic had also suffered from smoke inhalation and was under observation.

Formula 1's ruling body, the FIA, said a total of 31 people were seen by medical staff from the circuit. Seven had been transferred to local hospitals.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/99605

no one seriously hurt that we know of terry.

nice to see people form other teams helping them.

PS Pic 4:- Those red hoses need reinforcement in the walls, since they kink badly

Aren't those lay flat hoses? THey store flat on a reel (take up less space) and only fill out when they've got high pressure in them. If so, those kinks will do nothing to stem the flow. The hose is flexible enough to allow the water through, even with the kinks in them. The amount of water they flow is overkill anyway (if you have good pressure) so the small reduction in flow won't make a big difference to their firefighting needs.

Thanks, I'll accept that; but the same hose in Pic 3 seems to be emitting better flow (notwithstanding that the pressure + the nozzle position are the same).

Overkill? In this instance, you're probably right. Ta.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...