Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Why is this still unresolved? Almost at two weeks later ffs.

It's not unresolved. It's just that RBR didn't like the resolution.

But RBR have been testing meters under FIA observation in the meantime, and have "acquired a number of new fuel flow sensors and will work with the FIA during the (Malaysian GP) weekend to find one that is accurate to the satisfaction of both sides."

They're less likely to do it again this weekend because they have no real hope of keeping the Mercedes powered cars behind them on these long straights unless Renault has made big gains in their engine POWER spec - oops did I say power? I meant reliability - because those are the only changes allowed now, for improved reliability. yeah right... whereas in Aus it was worth the risk because it is a difficult track to pass on.

Edited by hrd-hr30

But RBR have been testing meters under FIA observation in the meantime, and have "acquired a number of new fuel flow sensors and will work with the FIA during the (Malaysian GP) weekend to find one that is accurate to the satisfaction of both sides."

Slightly worrying that the sensors need to be tested on the car to find an accurate/acceptable one.

Slightly worrying that the sensors need to be tested on the car to find an accurate/acceptable one.

They are all tested then an offset applied (eg its 2% over reading or under reading or whatever) and then used. It is easy to say it should be perfect but nothing in this world ever is.

They are all tested then an offset applied (eg its 2% over reading or under reading or whatever) and then used. It is easy to say it should be perfect but nothing in this world ever is.

The sensor manufacturer says "52 per cent of its meters are with a 0.1 per cent accuracy reading, with 92 per cent within 0.25 per cent". As you say the offset is applied to level them out, so all cars can use the same mass fuel flow.

"the teams have accepted that when they are alerted to the possibility the sensor could exceed the 100kg per hour rate at peak flow, irrespective of what their own data says, they have to peg back their rate slightly to ensure there is no breach of the rules." Well, every team except one that decided to ignore it and the FIA when fighting for position with a more powerful car...

(quotes from http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112973)

Edited by hrd-hr30

Well it does because if it was a bullshit number you can understand why they reacted in the way they did.

EG:
FIA: "We now want you to reduce your fuel flow by 5%"

RB: "It was 0.2% on Friday your numbers are clearly rubbish. Get stuffed."

FIA: "Resistance is useless" etc etc*

* Yes I am likening the FIA to the Vogons.

Edited by djr81

Well it does because if it was a bullshit number you can understand why they reacted in the way they did.

EG:

FIA: "We now want you to reduce your fuel flow by 5%"

RB: "It was 0.2% on Friday your numbers are clearly rubbish. Get stuffed."

FIA: "Resistance is useless" etc etc*

* Yes I am likening the FIA to the Vogons.

everyone was in the same boat. Other teams adjusted their fuel flow during the race according to what the FIA were seeing from the sensor. Some even chose to run well below the sensor indicated maximum flow to make sure they didn't exceed it. Only one car refused to play by the same rules and the same calibrated/corrected meter everyone was using. .

Edited by hrd-hr30

Half expect RBR are willing to fall on the sword early and bring the BS out in the open. I hear what you are saying about others obeying...but for all we know RBR may have been the worst example being asked to forfeit 4% power vs lesser amounts for others cars.

It matters little, the fact that many cars were all winding back performance, likely to all differing levels then why even have qualifying or practice sessions. Just have a raffle and fit random flow meters to the cars and watch them jockey for position in a race as the FIA tell them to slow down or allow them to speed up all on different levels ...retarded.

I am no fan of RBR...but good on them for busing balls over this now and hopefully we will avoid the farce of inaccurate instruments hurting a percentage of th efields performance over a race weekend, because....lotter dip of erroneous sensors says so

  • Like 2

Kimi has made a great improvement in the Ferrari. Mercedes having tyre wear worries

Might be an interesting weekend after all

yeah looks like it was more than just the new braking system....

but it sounded like he was having tyre issues on the long run too wasnt he?

hopefully the ferraris can take it to the mercs!!!

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

    • There's plenty of OEM steering arms that are bolted on. Not in the same fashion/orientation as that one, to be sure, but still. Examples of what I'm thinking of would use holes like the ones that have the downward facing studs on the GTR uprights (down the bottom end, under the driveshaft opening, near the lower balljoint) and bolt a steering arm on using only 2 bolts that would be somewhat similarly in shear as these you're complainig about. I reckon old Holdens did that, and I've never seen a broken one of those.
    • Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
    • The roof is wrapped
    • This is how I last did this when I had a master cylinder fail and introduce air. Bleed before first stage, go oh shit through first stage, bleed at end of first stage, go oh shit through second stage, bleed at end of second stage, go oh shit through third stage, bleed at end of third stage, go oh shit through fourth stage, bleed at lunch, go oh shit through fifth stage, bleed at end of fifth stage, go oh shit through sixth stage....you get the idea. It did come good in the end. My Topdon scan tool can bleed the HY51 and V37, but it doesn't have a consult connector and I don't have an R34 to check that on. I think finding a tool in an Australian workshop other than Nissan that can bleed an R34 will be like rocking horse poo. No way will a generic ODB tool do it.
    • Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers. The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure. Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force. Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.
×
×
  • Create New...