Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Mark Webber being asked why he took so long to get out of the car after it had stopped.

Asked why he took so long to get out of the car, he laconically replied: "I was trying to get the fire extinguisher out but I couldn't. I had my overalls on."

Hmm just need to transfer Webbers luck onto ze German and things will be sweet. Mind you that needed to be done four years ago. Anyway damn fine drive by Kimi & teh Hulk. Not so much by Di Resta or Grosjean.

You have to wonder about F1 though. Dan in the pre race interview talking about losing weight for next year and Hulkenberg struggling to get a drive on account of being an impossibly heavy 70kg. FFS it isnt a horse race. Why is it so hard to make a regulation so that someone larger than a jockey can compete?

Mark Webber being asked why he took so long to get out of the car after it had stopped.

Mark Webber slated Pirelli after the Korean Grand Prix, saying drivers are not important to Formula 1's tyre manufacturer.

The Red Bull driver picked up a puncture from debris when the right-front tyre on Sergio Perez's McLaren failed in front of him.

"That is how it is. The drivers aren't super important - it is what other people want," said Webber after retiring from the race.

"The tyres are wearing a lot and they also explode a bit - but that is for Pirelli to sort out."

Drivers complained over the weekend that the super-soft tyres taken to Korea were wearing out too quickly around the Yeongam track.

The safety car had to be deployed during the race after Perez's tyre explosion.

Webber said there was no excuse for such issues.

"Pirelli will put the puncture of Perez down to a lock-up but the reason the drivers are locking up is because there's no tread left," said Webber.

WAR OF WORDS

Ferrari's Fernando Alonso, who was also critical of the tyres on Saturday, was involved in a war of words with Pirelli boss Paul Hembery, who suggested the Spaniard should seek advice from Sebastian Vettel on how to make the tyres work.

"I can only suggest he goes to ask the soon-to-be four-times champion how to get the best from the same tyres," Hembery said on Saturday.

Before the race, however, Hembery apologised to Alonso for his comments.

The Ferrari driver admitted it was up to his team to get the best out of the tyres, but he insisted there are no doubts that the rubber is on the limit.

"There is no controversy. We speak with facts and they [Pirelli] just use words. Everybody can see that," said Alonso after the race.

"These are tyres that won't last a lap, but as we said yesterday, we have zero problems with the performance.

"It's us who haven't adapted to these 2012 tyres. It's up to us Ferrari, or the drivers, to improve.

"But the tyre marbles are there, and when it rains they have to stop the races, and then Perez has a blowout...

"So we know the tyres are on the limit in terms of quality.

"Hembery had not heard this and he made a mistake, and he came to apologise, so we are thankful for that.

"It seemed weird that given the season Pirelli is having they decide to speak out. But he apologised and it's all good."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/110380

Daniel Ricciardo has blamed a brake problem for his late retirement from ninth place in the Korean Grand Prix

The problem, which is also believed to have led the team to calling team-mate Jean-Eric Vergne into retirement

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/110399

Brawn was talked of Williams a few weeks back...good chance to almost run his own shop....so much talk suggests Mercedes osnt a place he will be hanging around for too long.

Have not watched the race yet. Romain appears to have had a good weekend! Another race where Kimi had to have the team behind him in order to beat him?

Brawn was talked of Williams a few weeks back...good chance to almost run his own shop....so much talk suggests Mercedes osnt a place he will be hanging around for too long.

Have not watched the race yet. Romain appears to have had a good weekend! Another race where Kimi had to have the team behind him in order to beat him?

Probably not quite as good as you would hope but an improvement, certainly. Also your boy teh Hulk done good.

So Hulk didn't throw the car away or do something a bit keen?

Good on gim for the last few races. Really pulling together gopd weekends. Its only his 3rd season...but 3rd different team so has had some learning to do.

Nah he did really good. Unlike anyone in a Force it India.

Got half way through the race. So far Romain has raced like a champion resisting Hamo. I am waiting for him to faulter. Hulk is doing a good job but it doesnt look like the guys behind him are much faster (Well at least Alonso doesnt appear quicker) and Kimi and Webber just lining him up.

But...reason for the post...anyone seen Rish yet? I saw it in gold class last night and its worth a watch. Tells the story semi close to what I understand it....but still very Hollywood with inability to film a farking car with a steady farking camera!

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

    • 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.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...