Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

.

.

<snip>

The 32-year-old Finn, who spent the past two seasons competing in the World Rally Championship, gave everyone at Lotus a bit of a fright when he crashed during a ski trip just weeks after signed a two-year deal with the team.

<snip>

.

.

.

.

<snip>

The 31-year-old has been spending time in a F1 driver-position simulator supplied by Technogym at his Swiss home, and Arnell says it is very close to the real deal.

<snip>

.

.

:unsure:

Edited by ctjet
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

looks like kubica might be out for all of this year.

Robert Kubica has injured his leg in a fall near his home, with sources close to the Polish driver suggesting that he has reopened a fracture that he sustained in his rally accident last year.

It is understood that Kubica fell over on ice in Pietrasanta, where he lives, and subsequently complained of pain in the right leg which was broken in his crash. He was driven to the local hospital for checks.

Although there has been no official statement, it is understood that it has been found that Kubica has reopened the fracture in his right tibia.

Kubica's latest injury setback comes on the same day that Ferrari played down talk that it was planning to test the Polish driver later this year once he was fully recovered.

Sources suggested that the injury is likely to delay his recovery by at least three weeks.

"That was not on our plan," said Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali at the annual Wrooom media event.

"For sure Robert Kubica is a great driver that had a very severe injuries and at the moment he is still working very hard to try to go back to his normal living.

"So before any kind of thinking or discussion of whatever could be, we need to wait and see. For sure that kind of injury is taking a long time to recover so I can say we will wait and see if he is going to recover, but at the moment there is nothing in place."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96958

not looking forward to seeing this.

Lotus's rivals look set to be forced to copy its innovative reactive ride height system ahead of the 2012 season, with the FIA happy the concept is totally legal.

There has been much intrigue in recent days about the mechanism that Lotus was reported to have tried out at the Abu Dhabi young driver test last year.

The mechanical system helps maintain a standard ride height during braking - when often the front of the car would dip down.

Rivals teams are understood to have looked into the system and its legality over recent days - with a report in Gazzetta dello Sport this week suggesting it was driver adjusted by the use of a pedal in the cockpit.

However, if the drivers were changing the ride height of the cars under braking then that would be a breach of the rules.

Article 3.15 of the F1 Technical Regulations states: "With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18 [the DRS], any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited."

AUTOSPORT can reveal, however, that the adjustment to the ride height - which improves aerodynamic performance and stability on the Lotus under braking - does not come from the driver.

Instead it is reactive to brake torque and is linked directly to the suspension - so cannot be classified as a moveable aerodynamic device in the way that independent mass dampers were.

Te fact that the driver is not involved, and that the system is a part of the suspension, means it complies fully with the F1 regulations.

AUTOSPORT understands that Lotus has been in liaison with the FIA throughout the development of the brake system, having first been proposed in 2010 and been given an official green light by the governing as long ago as January last year.

With the FIA happy that the brake system is legal, it means that its main rivals will now have to propose their own systems to the governing body if they want to adopt such a concept for the forthcoming season.

AUTOSPORT also understands that at least one front-running team has already submitted plans for a similar ride-height adjustment device to be used in 2012

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/96952

Also the Renault reactive ride height system is sort of old news

Mclaren and Ferrari suspected RBR of having it last year, tried to emulate it and were were told that it would breach the tech regs

Now that Renault have blazed the trail im sure everybody will jump on this cheap and effective system

They always seems to start the season off well so I hope that at least scores them something early on

The development race is what kills them, and now with Mercedes picking up the points as often as Ferrari it doesnt look good. Force India are now actually a force and Renault are starting to look good, I dont see 2012 ending much better than 2011

It'd be quite an achievement if team Willy could amass only 5 points or fewer in '12

Renault power should improve their chances a bunch

Seriously, you'd assume what Cosworth doesn't know about V8 grand prix engines wouldn't be worth knowing, yet that didn't stop it sucking.

The engine development freeze is what killed them, their last engine from 2-3? years ago is what they had to run with. they did get to make some improvments, but missing 3 years woth of data hurt them.

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...