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

The Lotus system does not break the rules. The Mercedes system does

Something about the Mercedes system being active only during DRS, where as the LOTUS system is active all the time, just more effective during DRS or something like that

Guess they saw the rule change/ban coming

I read it was both systems. But if what you are saying is right then they wont wheel it out next year as that will give the other teams a chance to look at it and copy it for next season. They will perfect it over the off season and try to steal a march for next year. (perhaps )

Bernie Ecclestone is still hoping Formula One scraps plans to swap from 2.4-litre V8 engines to 1.6-litre turbo-charged V6s in 2014.

The sport had intended to make the change for the 2013 season but that was delayed by a year with Mercedes and Renault believed to be the two powers pushing for the change to go ahead.

One person who doesn't want it is F1 supremo Ecclestone, who has been against the proposal from the word go. And his attitude has not softened with time.

"I listened to the noise of the engines in Maranello the other day, the new engine and the old engine, and even Luca di Montezemolo said it sounded terrible and didn't like it," Ecclestone told the Hindustan Times.

The 81-year-old is now hoping that FIA President Jean Todt "will get rid of it.

"I think Luca is also saying we should suspend it for two or three years. I think it is sensible to get rid of it and stick with what we have got.

"It is much cheaper than the new one. It probably could be 30 percent of the price."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/8129603/Bernie-wants-rid-of-V6-engines

Michael Schumacher could head to Sauber next after chief executive Monisha Kaltenborn admitted the midfield would be interested in signing him.

The seven-time World Champion has been left without a race-seat for next year's Championship after losing out to Lewis Hamilton.

Hamilton's replacement at McLaren has already been signed with Sergio Perez departing from Sauber and heading to Woking leaving the Swiss team with a seat open.

And that seat could yet go to Schumacher should the 43-year-old want to continue racing.

"Of course it's nice to think of such a possibility, that we can ask ourselves if we can get a seven-time World Champion when he is on the market," Kaltenborn told the Bild.

"Michael has until now been with just big stables which we can't compare ourselves to."

Team owner Peter Sauber has previously admitted an interest in Schumacher, saying he would "immediately" sign the German if he were available.

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/8129849/Sauber-Schumi-a-possibility

it would be a upgrade from the merc anyways. :laugh:

Jenson Button will have a five-place grid penalty for the Japanese Grand Prix because he needs a new gearbox for the Suzuka weekend.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/103002

Anyone else tired of all these gearbox penalties?

I hope Schumacher goes to Sauber. I think its more than a match for the Merc. Certainly looks after its tyres better, and is more reliable as well. In a way I'd like to see that more than him going back to Ferrari, which is a massive long shot. I'm picturing Schumacher in a Sauber beating Hamilton in the Mercedes... that would work for me! Perez has shown the car has the pace at tracks that suit it, so a final GP victory wouldn't be totally out of the question there either.

Edited by hrd-hr30

May as well just scrap grid penalties and make it a lucky dip draw for where you are on the grid for the race.

But then again the wealthier/smarter teams might find a way to exploit that to guarantee pole.

reliability penalties are stupidity.

Absolutely they are!

Especially when the major reasoning behind the rulings is a bid to "reduce spiralling costs" whereby rich teams can afford to run their equipement nearer the edge and just change it out as they deem it required.

Really an empty rule given the realisation above in the Ecclestone quote that the new turbo tractor engines could be over THREE times the price of the current engines. Add to that costs of developement and......

As we all know, a MAJOR ingredient of F1 is the sound.

I reckon most will remember fondly the halcyon days of the V10's as a high point. Given increasing competition for dollars that run "The Show", I would think going back to V10 rather than the "wrong" way to V6 would offer something (ie, the noise!) that no competitor to F1 can....

Oh V10..... how I miss you. The sounds I heard at Monza were LAME compared to this.

Felipe Massa, Nico Hulkenberg and Paul di Resta are the three men in the running for the second seat at Ferrari in 2013, according to a report.

Brazilian Massa's current contract with the team runs out at the end of this season and initial reports suggested the Italian outfit would get rid of him, but his solid form during the latter stages of this campaign has seen his stock rise again.

Even Fernando Alonso has paid tribute to Massa saying "if the team decide to change Felipe, whoever [comes in] has to be better than Felipe".

According to BBC Sport, Ferrari's "intention is to retain" the Brazilian "but Force India drivers Nico Hulkenberg and Paul di Resta are options".

The report adds that "Ferrari's bosses want to wait a little longer before confirming Massa to be sure he can hold on to his current form.

"Meanwhile, the picture is complicated by a source with good knowledge of the driver market saying that a deal for Hulkenberg to join Ferrari next year is already done."

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/8133142/-Three-On-Ferrari-Shortlist-

wow, so the most promising youngster, who coincidently is (was) in the Ferrari acadamy is not ready for a Ferrari drive, but DiResta and Hulkenberg are???

I guess by "ready" they meant willing to play second fiddle.

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

    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
    • I know I have to get a wheel alignment but until then I just need to bring the rear tyres in a bit they're wearing to the belt on the inside and brand new on the outside edge. I did shorten the arms a bit but got it wrong now after a few klms the Slip and VDC lights come on. I'd just like to get it to a point where I can drive for another week or two before getting an alignment. I've had to pay a lot of other stuff recently so doing it myself is my only option 
×
×
  • Create New...