Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Massa had enough room, didn't yield once he was taken and caused the incident, he aimed it at the tyres and kept on going, why he freaked and spun it makes me think he was trying to cause rbr penalties. He's good enough to have done otherwise and chose not to, for what ever reason.

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The guy on the inside/racing line doesn't have to yeild! It's his corner. You can legitimately drive out to the edge of the track and run the guy on the outside out of room if you want. When they collided they were only mid track just after the apex. If you're going round the outside, you're making your own arrangements - you have no claim to the corner. That is the way its always been.

only once massa over rides the second kerb does he send himself into a spin

as per usual he'll use any excuse to shield himself from the truth of his own inability

3rd kerb? which is also the normal racing line...

and the fact is you can hear he was off the throttle when the spin started and only picked the throttle up when he was had done more than 90degrees to try and keep the spin going and hopefully end up pointing the right way...

they've also got data showing he hit the brakes hard as Mark rejoined the track right across his nose onto the racing line, which is a big no-no normally... as is completing a pass off the track. How Mark escaped without 3 drive-thru penalties in that race I have NFI

Yarr, the third kerb

Fact is, it doesn't matter at what point he got back on the throttle, he had already managed to be back in control of the car by the second kerb. But because he's a punk bitch, instead of continuing the line he deserved, he back off and caused that spin all by his lonesome. His inability to assert himself manifests itself on track and pigeonholes him as an easy target

Webber blasting past certainly helped him into the spin, but he did not cause it. You wouldn't imagine Webber trying that on Alonso or Lewis

Also i agree, webber deserved an earlier drive through, but thats somewhat unrelated

Edited by ctjet

sif there is any alcohol consumed in the middle east.....

there are bars/clubs here,

but i've been told they're more for meeting errr........... ladys of the night then drinking.

Webber completed the pass outside the track, so he would have been forced to give it back. As Massa had spun (regardless of whose fault it was) he couldn't give back the place he gained illegally, so he should have been penalized. Pretty simple really

The real shame is that Massa didn't rip a skid across Vettel's front wing

The guy on the inside/racing line doesn't have to yeild! It's his corner. You can legitimately drive out to the edge of the track and run the guy on the outside out of room if you want. When they collided they were only mid track just after the apex. If you're going round the outside, you're making your own arrangements - you have no claim to the corner. That is the way its always been.

Is that really true though?!?! Forget the Webber incidents etc for a moment. Just generally...

Historically they gave each other room. Then with increases in safety and tracks with run off emerging as the norm you started to see guys more commonly being forced wide. Typically you used the exit and compromised their run in the corner...but I am not sure I accept the "you run them out of room/track theory. God knows its dangerous making blanket statements as moves around the outside are common in flip-flop/S-bends etc.

But I do agree that the guy on the inside has the line and advantage and has the right to hang around , but if he is a wheel behind on a compromised line for the exit as he is entering so shallow then I am not sure its so clear cut.

So jumping back to the Webber theory I just dont think its so clear cut. If you try an outside move on a 90deg corner you have to expect you are going to be pinched on the exit these days and probably forced to take to the run off area as they take the line on exit if you are anything remotely wheel to wheel. This is where you are better trying to compromise their entry then get a better exit with the over-under style move.

But on a flip flop/S-bend the guy on the inside has to get back to the other side of the track asap to get a good run on the exit of the second bend. In the case of Webber-Massa, Masa forced Webber off the track after a dive bombing wheel clash when hsi normal line would have been to hand left on exit so he had a more optimum line for the second half of the corner. So you are free to tae the normal line but I guess to e its blurred with racing craft when you hang around the outside hoping to gain track position and the inside line for the second corner or final 90deg part of the croner

Once someone gets 3/4 of the car past you perhaps it is time to roll off the throttle a little earlier and leave some racing room (drivers in the BTCC are excluded)

yes - IF they are on the inside and half way alongside, it is their corner. The guy on the outside is the one who should be rolling off the throttle.

All I can say is you guys would be singing a different tune if it were Maldonardo on the outside and Webber or Hamilton on the inside...

but I probably would too :P

Edited by hrd-hr30

Bernie Ecclestone has revealed that Magny Cours is the only circuit he will consider if the French GP returns to the calender.

http://www.planetf1....for-2013-return-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4q0DeZVusM

McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh has confirmed that the team intend to run with Mercedes engines for some time to come.

"It is going to be McLaren Mercedes for quite a few years to come," Whitmarsh told the the Daily Mail.

"It is a good partnership and it works well. We've been together for 18 years and it is going to continue for quite a few years to come.

"I think we have got a very good deal with them, but I think more importantly than that is we have got a good partnership.

"Obviously I've been involved with Mercedes personally. I ran the engine side so we know the people, and we are proud to be part of the Mercedes-Benz family."

http://www.planetf1....n-with-Mercedes

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

    • 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 
    • You just need a wheel alignment after, so just set them to the same as current and drive to the shop. As there are 2 upper links it may also be worth adding adjustable upper front links at the same time; these reduce bump steer when you move the camber (note that setting those correctly takes a lot longer as you have to recheck the camber at each length of the toe arm, through a range of movement, so you could just ignore that unless the handling becomes unpredictable)
×
×
  • Create New...