Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Crazy amount of money being spent to be 18th with the hope of better

You have to start somewhere. Look at Force India. They were at the back of the grid not so long ago, and now they are often top 10 in qualy or race. I think its good to see a new team investing so heavily.

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Oh I agree. But my god the spend in the sport is stoooooopidly high just to get your name on the dance card. I am a BIG Caterham fan and out of all the new teams I love how Fernandes has approached building the team. Gascoyne is a clever guy at pulling things together and getting teams operating on small budgets but the team needs more engineering grunt. Its a shame they didnt get Kay and it seems Symonds is going to Marussia upon completion of his ban

It's funny how they brought out all these new rules to cut costs, and it seems like there spending more money then ever trying to bend the rules. It also doesnt help when they change there minds every few years, just when they have the V8's figured out and reliable, they decide they want to change the engines again

It's a bit strange.

As long as they dont bring out that ugly roll bar thats gonna go over the front of the cockpit. Saw the photos of it and it looked horrible :(

Michael Schumacher has been hit with a fine of €2500 for not using the pit-entry road correctly during Friday afternoon practice at Spa.

The stewards, which includes ex-March, ATS and Ensign grand prix driver Eliseo Salazar found that Schumacher "did not stay to the right of the bollard on the left in the pit entry" when he drove into the pits with 28 minutes of the session remaining.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/102101

Mark Webber will have a five-place grid penalty for the Belgian Grand Prix because of a gearbox change.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/102106

Spa is one of the tracks where it probably wont hurt (As much) to get a grid penalty.

So if theres any consilation for Webber, its that there are worse places to get a grid penalty.

Having said that though, the Red Bull's lack of straight line speed in comparison to other cars wont help this.... so maybe my point I just made is useless lol

Was looking forward to Lotus DDRS, shame there not going to run it but understandable.

p3 Times

01 Fernando Alonso Ferrari 1:48.542 18 laps

02 Kimi Raikkonen Lotus 1:48.683 0.141 21 laps

03 Sergio Perez Sauber 1:48.850 0.308 23 laps

04 Kamui Kobayashi Sauber 1:48.863 0.321 20 laps

05 Jenson Button McLaren 1:49.091 0.549 18 laps

06 Felipe Massa Ferrari 1:49.092 0.550 16 laps

07 Mark Webber Red Bull 1:49.164 0.622 21 laps

08 Romain Grosjean Lotus 1:49.266 0.724 23 laps

09 Sebastian Vettel Red Bull 1:49.292 0.750 23 laps

10 Paul di Resta Force India 1:49.382 0.840 22 laps

11 Pastor Maldonado Williams 1:49.561 1.019 23 laps

12 Lewis Hamilton McLaren 1:49.615 1.073 19 laps

13 Michael Schumacher Mercedes 1:49.621 1.079 26 laps

14 Nico Hulkenberg Force India 1:49.674 1.132 23 laps

15 Jean-Eric Vergne Toro Rosso 1:49.710 1.168 21 laps

16 Daniel Ricciardo Toro Rosso 1:49.776 1.234 22 laps

17 Bruno Senna Williams 1:50.027 1.485 20 laps

18 Heikki Kovalainen Caterham 1:52.339 3.797 21 laps

19 Charles Pic Marussia 1:52.566 4.024 20 laps

20 Timo Glock Marussia 1:52.630 4.088 18 laps

21 Vitaly Petrov Caterham 1:52.809 4.267 22 laps

22 Pedro de la Rosa HRT 1:53.383 4.841 22 laps

23 Narain Karthikeyan HRT 1:53.562 5.020 23 laps

24 Nico Rosberg Mercedes 1:58.113 9.571 5 laps

Perez hit the front before Alonso, back on the medium tyres, went quickest with a 1:48.542. Raikkonen went second quickest after setting a fastest middle sector time with Perez

dropping to third. Button finished fifth behind Kobayashi and ahead of Massa and Webber.

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/8040603/Alonso-Shines-In-A-Dry-Final-Practice

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...