Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The only limit on the new engines is basically fuel. They are only allowed to carry a certain amount of fuel and it means they will have to be pretty conservative with boost and power if they want to make it to the end of the race. Hopefully they will hot them up to serious power then turn them down for economy but at points of the race lean on it for more power and speed...strategies will be interesting

So its going to be a regularity run like this years races - just instead of tyres being the limiting factor it will be fuel. Or are they going to alternate between the two to spice the show up?

Spice is the right word. Because you wont know whether or not they are driving slowly to conserve fuel or to conserve their tyres. Imagine the tension, the excitement of the post race interview.

"So, Kimi, tell us about your race"

"It was shit."
"Was the tyres or fuel this time?"

"Tyres."

Unparalleled levels of awesomeness right there.

Spice is the right word. Because you wont know whether or not they are driving slowly to conserve fuel or to conserve their tyres. Imagine the tension, the excitement of the post race interview.

"So, Kimi, tell us about your race"

"It was shit."

"Was the tyres or fuel this time?"

"Tyres."

Unparalleled levels of awesomeness right there.

Sounds like a normal interview with Kimi? lol

Paddy Lowe will add his name to the Mercedes payroll next month after McLaren agreed to let him go early.

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/8724087/Lowe-To-Join-Merc-In-As-Technical-Exec

Although Bernie Ecclestone wouldn't be "surprised" if BMW returned to F1, the German company has denied plans.

"I would be surprised if we don't see BMW again," Ecclestone told City A.M. "I think they could come in.

"The amount of money they spent was not significant in the grand scheme of things. It makes sense for them to return."

BMW, though, insist they have no plans of making a comeback.

"I don't know with whom Bernie spoke," motorsport boss Jens Marquardt told Autosport. "We are right on top of our current programme, namely DTM.

"In GT sports cars at the Nordschleife and in ALMS as well as customer sport programmes we are posting super results.

"We have absolutely no intention of looking at other categories. We made a conscious decision to withdraw from Formula 1.

"We orientated ourselves around that which our customers recognise as being BMW. There is no reason to alter this concept. It is currently running very well."

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/8724333/BMW-have-no-intention-of-returning

all problems will be solved when the FIA adopts my 'Drive it like you stole it' F1 regs

Nankang will be the sole tyre supplier. Tyres will be 16" wide at the front and 20" at the rear. Treadwear ratings will be 400, 500 and 600

Ground effects is back

Refuelling reinstated. Each car will be allocated 300L per race. Cars will have 1 second added to their race classification for every 10L of fuel remaining in the hopper at the finish

they just need to get in front and control the race from there

hold up guys, we're dealing with a master strategist here! :D jks

qualifying well here matters more than at any other track

hell, any passing will likely be only of the pit-lane 'undercut' or blue flag variety

P1 Times
01 Nico Rosberg Mercedes 1:16.195 30 laps
02 Fernando Alonso Ferrari 1:16.282 +0.087s 26 laps
03 Romain Grosjean Lotus 1:16.380 +0.185s 20 laps
04 Felipe Massa Ferrari 1:16.394 +0.199s 22 laps
05 Lewis Hamilton Mercedes 1:16.469 +0.274s 27 laps
06 Pastor Maldonado Williams 1:16.993 +0.798s 26 laps
07 Mark Webber Red Bull 1:17.020 +0.825s 26 laps
08 Jenson Button McLaren 1:17.129 +0.934s 28 laps
09 Sergio Perez McLaren 1:17.378 +1.183s 24 laps
10 Sebastian Vettel Red Bull 1:17.380 +1.185s 22 laps
11 Kimi Raikkonen Lotus 1:17.509 +1.314s 25 laps
12 Paul di Resta Force 1:17.548 +1.353s 26 laps
13 Adrian Sutil Force 1:17.625 +1.430s 20 laps
14 Nico Hulkenberg Sauber 1:18.193 +1.998s 25 laps
15 Jean-Eric Vergne Toro Rosso 1:18.454 +2.259s 24 laps
16 Esteban Gutierrez Sauber 1:8.754 +2.559s 27 laps
17 Valtteri Bottas Williams 1:18.830 +2.635s 27 laps
18 Daniel Ricciardo Toro Rosso 1:19.067 +2.872s 24 laps
19 Giedo van der Garde Caterham 1:19.203 +3.008s 20 laps
20 Charles Pic Caterham 1:19.438 +3.243s 27 laps
21 Jules Bianchi Marussia 1:19.773 +3.578s 19 laps
22 Max Chilton Marussia 1:20.225 +4.030s 20 laps

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/8729364/Prac-One

P2 Times
01 Nico Rosberg Mercedes 1:14.759 45 laps
02 Lewis Hamilton Mercedes 1:15.077 +0.318s 50 laps
03 Fernando Alonso Ferrari 1:15.196 +0.437s 37 laps
04 Felipe Massa Ferrari 1:15.278 +0.519s 38 laps
05 Mark Webber Red Bull 1:15.404 +0.645s 41 laps
06 Kimi Raikkonen Lotus 1:5.511 +0.752s 38 laps
07 Romain Grosjean Lotus 1:15.718 +0.959s 10 laps
08 Jenson Button McLaren 1:15.959 +1.200s 39 laps
09 Sebastian Vettel Red Bull 1:16.014 +1.255s 32 laps
10 Paul di Resta Force India 1:16.046 +1.287s 42 laps
11 Adrian Sutil Force India 1:16.349 +1.590s 43 laps
12 Sergio Perez McLaren 1:16.434 +1.675s 40 laps
13 Nico Hulkenberg Sauber 1:16.823 +2.064s 42 laps
14 Pastor Maldonado Williams 1:16.857 +2.098s 40 laps
15 Esteban Gutierrez Sauber 1:16.935 +2.176s 44 laps
16 Daniel Ricciardo Toro Rosso 1:17.145 +2.386s 37 laps
17 Jean-Eric Vergne Toro Rosso 1:17.184 +2.425s 42 laps
18 Valtteri Bottas Williams 1:17.264 +2.505s 46 laps
19 Jules Bianchi Marussia 1:17.892 +3.133s 40 laps
20 Charles Pic Caterham 1:18.212 +3.453s 43 laps
21 Max Chilton Marussia 1:18.784 +4.025s 40 laps
22 Giedo van der Garde Caterham 1:19.031 +4.272s 30 laps

http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/8729948/Prac-Two

I suspect the Mercs may manage to get passed here too - look how bad they were under brakes last race, particualrly in the downhill braking area... If they suck that bad here, they will be passed into the first chicane after the tunnel. And if they hurt their rear tyres too badly, they might find themselves getting passed on the pit straight or even after the first chicane.

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

    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • 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
×
×
  • Create New...