Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Formula 1's teams have been told by the FIA that they cannot run trick brake systems that react to temperature to improve cooling during races, following a complaint by Red Bull.

AUTOSPORT can reveal that Red Bull wrote to motor racing's governing body ahead of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to seek clarification on the use of thermal energy devices within the air duct of the brake system.

The team contended that attempts to use either a bimetallic strip - which would change shape to open and close off cooling ducts depending on the temperature of the brake friction material - or a thermal actuator was a breach of the regulations.

In the letter, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT, Red Bull argued: "Use of such technology via either of the examples offered or similar devices will change the brake system, thus including the air duct, and are not reacting to the driver's direct physical input and are not under his complete control at all times as required by Article 11.1.4 [of the F1 technical regulations].

"RBR therefore contend such systems are in breach of the 2012 F1 Technical Regulations and seek your opinion on the matter."

Article 11.1.4 of the regulations states: "Any change to, or modulation of, the brake system whilst the car is moving must be made by the driver's direct physical input, may not be pre-set and must be under his complete control at all times."

The FIA duly responded to Red Bull on Friday confirming that it agreed with its view that the use of such systems would be a breach of the rules.

In a letter that was forwarded to all teams and seen by AUTOSPORT, the FIA's Charlie Whiting said: "In our view movement of a bimetallic strip and thermal actuator within the air duct as you describe would not be made by the driver's direct physical input, hence we believe such a system would contravene Article 11.1.4 of the F1 Technical Regulations."

AUTOSPORT understands that Red Bull's complaint was made after suspicions that at least one of its rival teams was using the concept on its car.

However, high levels sources at Red Bull's main rivals insist that they have never used the concept and agree that doing so would be a breach of the rules.

Red Bull's dialogue with the FIA shows how focused the outfit is on ensuring that it maintains every possible competitive advantage as it makes a push to win its third consecutive championship double.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/103958

Paul di Resta has switched to a new chassis in Abu Dhabi in a bid to move on from the 'fundamental' issue which had blighted his last few races.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/103959

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

the interesting thing about homos fastest p1 time was that he was told by mac to come in for a set up change the lap before so he could try the new set up on the same tyres he was on but homo said no, he was told by mac that if he stayed out that they would not be able to change his set up in time to go out again and use the same tyres mac asked homo if he still wanted to stay out, homo chose to stay out.

ego???

p1 Times

01 Lewis Hamilton McLaren 1:43.285 21 laps

02 Jenson Button McLaren 1:43.618 0.333 19 laps

03 Sebastian Vettel Red Bull 1:44.050 0.765 23 laps

04 Fernando Alonso Ferrari 1:44.366 1.081 21 laps

05 Mark Webber Red Bull 1:44.542 1.257 22 laps

06 Michael Schumacher Mercedes 1:44.694 1.409 23 laps

07 Pastor Maldonado Williams 1:45.115 1.830 26 laps

08 Nico Rosberg Mercedes 1:45.194 1.909 19 laps

09 Valtteri Bottas Williams 1:45.347 2.062 25 laps

10 Kimi Raikkonen Lotus 1:45.422 2.137 15 laps

11 Felipe Massa Ferrari 1:45.567 2.282 24 laps

12 Nico Hulkenberg Force India 1:45.587 2.302 20 laps

13 Kamui Kobayashi Sauber 1:45.722 2.437 20 laps

14 Romain Grosjean Lotus 1:45.743 2.458 20 laps

15 Jules Bianchi Force India 1:45.769 2.484 22 laps

16 Sergio Perez Sauber 1:45.811 2.526 22 laps

17 Daniel Ricciardo Toro Rosso 1:46.649 3.364 24 laps

18 Jean-Eric Vergne Toro Rosso 1:46.708 3.423 26 laps

19 Heikki Kovalainen Caterham 1:47.418 4.133 23 laps

20 Timo Glock Marussia 1:47.891 4.606 21 laps

21 Pedro de la Rosa HRT 1:48.354 5.069 22 laps

22 Max Chilton Marussia 1:48.887 5.602 22 laps

23 Ma Qing Hua HRT 1:50.487 7.202 20 laps

Giedo van der Garde Caterham 3 laps

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/8218758/Prac-One-Hamilton-dominates

p2 Times

01 Sebastian Vettel Red Bull 1:41.751 33 laps

02 Lewis Hamilton McLaren 1:41.919 0.168 33 laps

03 Jenson Button McLaren 1:42.412 0.661 35 laps

04 Mark Webber Red Bull 1:42.466 0.715 21 laps

05 Romain Grosjean Lotus 1:42.500 0.749 34 laps

06 Kimi Raikkonen Lotus 1:42.532 0.781 27 laps

07 Fernando Alonso Ferrari 1:42.587 0.836 30 laps

08 Felipe Massa Ferrari 1:42.823 1.072 32 laps

09 Pastor Maldonado Williams 1:42.998 1.247 37 laps

10 Sergio Perez Sauber 1:43.106 1.355 35 laps

11 Bruno Senna Williams 1:43.191 1.440 33 laps

12 Nico Rosberg Mercedes 1:43.200 1.449 35 laps

13 Nico Hulkenberg Force India 1:43.255 1.504 34 laps

14 Michael Schumacher Mercedes 1:43.267 1.516 31 laps

15 Paul di Resta Force India 1:43.578 1.827 33 laps

16 Kamui Kobayashi Sauber 1:43.689 1.938 31 laps

17 Daniel Ricciardo Toro Rosso 1:44.260 2.509 26 laps

18 Jean-Eric Vergne Toro Rosso 1:45.073 3.322 19 laps

19 Vitaly Petrov Caterham 1:45.245 3.494 35 laps

20 Heikki Kovalainen Caterham 1:45.782 4.031 32 laps

21 Timo Glock Marussia 1:46.589 4.838 35 laps

22 Charles Pic Marussia 1:46.671 4.920 31 laps

23 Pedro de la Rosa HRT 1:46.707 4.956 26 laps

24 Narain Karthikeyan HRT 1:47.406 5.655 34 laps

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/8219582/Vettel-edges-Hamilton-in-second-practice

Was watching a doco on fighter planes today and I started dreaming how good would it be to see the US GP increase interest in corporate USA and someone like Lockheed Martin/BAE etc get behind an F1 team with tech/engineering effort. Would be interesting to see how the Yanks go as it has been over 20 years since they have had a team in F1.

I'd love to work for BAE Systems.

Imagine all the classified shiz they're working on, I haven't seen the doco you speak of, but did you hear about that helicopter that they had to ditch when they knocked off Bin Laden. Twas apparently some next level stealth tech, pretty cool.

Project Aurora, pulse jets, the composition of the radar absorbing material...and who knows what else.

Knowing how McLaren have been kicking home goals like in Singapore I am betting his car breaks and Webber takes a won :)

Have to say though, Whitmarsh must be looking at where Button is and then Homo and really be scratching his head. They are losing the freaskishly quick guy but keeping their consistant racer who rarely uses a cars pace in quali. And then Homo must be looking at the car he is getting at the moment and look at Mercedes and be worrying....seems McLaren and Lewis are the losers from the decision to move on.

A point was raised tonight that I had not considered. Part of the reason why Vergne flatters in the races compared to Disco Dan as he is always getting booted in Q1 so has loads of fresh tyres vs Dan that uses all his tyres up in Q1 and Q2 so ultimately loses some race pace for not having fresh tyres

Very dodgy that Red Bull and Renault won't cough up why Vettel stopped on track.

Their silence make them seem very guilty.

The easy money would be on not having enough fuel to get back.... bye bye to the back of the grid for Seb haha.

Alonso brings it home in third and retakes the lead or atleast gets himself back in contention.

dreams are free.

Well it has now been confitrmed that hr did not have enough fuel and is starting from last :) YAY! Webber might get the win but Lewis is looking mega quick. I am also betting he has not got very good 7th gear for overtaking on the straight so will be interesting to see if he can get a point as it looks pretty close up front with STR and the 3 new teams being off the top ten pace.

Excluding these guys from the entire quali session seems far too harsh. Excluding them from Q3 results makes sense, but they ruin races by taking out main players

Its not going to very interesting to watch hamo stroll away with this, and this track isnt the most thrilling place to begin with

Well it has now been confitrmed that he did not have enough fuel and is starting from last :) YAY!

:D

sucked all the way in

this and Gonzo's poor start position could be the only thing that keeps this championship vaguely alive

I certainly don't care that Vettel got shafted, but the FIA needing a whole litre of fuel for a sample seems a bit much.

What you gonna be able to see in 1000cc that you wouldn't get from 100 or 200cc?

A point was raised tonight that I had not considered. Part of the reason why Vergne flatters in the races compared to Disco Dan as he is always getting booted in Q1 so has loads of fresh tyres vs Dan that uses all his tyres up in Q1 and Q2 so ultimately loses some race pace for not having fresh tyres

Plus Dan has been compromised in at least two races with mechanical issues either on the last lap or in the last few laps which has cost him points.

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...