Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I started reading the Colin Chapman - Lotus book the other day. He was a hard man!

http://www.bookdepository.com/Colin-Chapman-Gerard-Crombac/9781859608449

Apparently Jabby Crombac knew him pretty well. Where did you find your copy?

Was never a fan of his engineering methodology, however. Good on the innovation, less so on nailing something together that didnt break.

Was also thinking ablout the Haynes manuals for the Lotus 72 & McLaren M23. Has anyone seen if they are any good?

Apparently Jabby Crombac knew him pretty well. Where did you find your copy?

Got mine from http://www.pitstop.net.au/products/colin-chapman--the-man-and-his-cars/

Also paid a small fortune for mint condition, original print, signed copy in English of On the Starting Grid, by Paul Frere. Don't care if its not great read...its just COOL!!!! But don't doubt i will enjoy the tales

9782360590179FS.gif

LOL, FI, STR are lucky in that theirs outright failing means they divert to the engine parameters/fuel rail etc whilst the meter was performing. Bets put a kill switch or fusible link in that power cable :)

Most likely teams have worked out by now the way around the meters and are either bench testing units and only installing the optimum ones. Remember the tolerance is + / - so imagine the holy grail is the one that reads a tad low and they get that .5% or 3-5hp extra

Oh no, not three to five hp extra!!!!!!! That's sure to make a monumental difference to cars with a total of about 760bhp.

It's an absolute lottery as to who will be fast every race!

Edited by hrd-hr30

Errrrrummmmm.... that 3-5hp difference that the FIA dont know about. So easily play with boost etc to make it how they want. So that is the possibility of making an extra 3-5 hp legally just by changing meter!

If you have a 70hp deficit like the Renaults are talked to have had at Malaysia then dont you want all the power you can get?

And thats for when the meter is working in its window of accuracy. When they are out by 1-2% it can easily be 15hp!!! If you are giving away power to Mercedes to start with that is going to further hurt the Renault and Ferrari runners even more!!!

Anyway...

you have the numbers way wrong. 1-2% is miles off:

52% of meter's manufactured are within 0.1% accuracy

92% of meters manufactured are within 0.25% accuracy

So no, it cannot "easily be 15hp!!!"

Edited by hrd-hr30

you have the numbers way wrong. 1-2% is miles off:

52% of meter's manufactured are within 0.1% accuracy

92% of meters manufactured are within 0.25% accuracy

So no, it cannot "easily be 15hp!!!"

From Autosport, mostly because I know how much you enjoy red highlights.

Red Bull appeal: Newey says FIA sensor would've cost second place

By Edd Straw Monday, April 14th 2014, 10:29 GMT

1397471398.jpg

Daniel Ricciardo would not have been able to finish second in the Australian Grand Prix had Red Bull adhered to the FIA's Formula 1 fuel-flow sensor, Adrian Newey has admitted.

Giving evidence during Monday's FIA Court of Appeal hearing in Paris, Red Bull has claimed that what it described as inaccurate fuel-flow sensor readings were costing it around 0.4 seconds per lap in Melbourne.

Ricciardo finished second before being disqualified for "consistently" exceeding the maximum permitted fuel-flow rate of 100kg/h, but after being warned by FIA head of powertrain Fabrice Lom about this during the race, the team did reduce it from laps 8-16.

The resulting loss in performance, combined with the fact that Red Bull believed the sensor not to be giving accurate readings, meant that the team opted to switch to its own fuel-flow model.

"When Mr Lom approached us and said that he felt we were using too much fuel, we disagreed with that," said Newey, Red Bull's chief technical officer.

"No team wants to court controversy and then defend itself, so if you can comply with those wishes even if you don't agree with them, then that's what you do and that's exactly what we did.

"The fact is, it then became evident that if we continued to comply, we would lose positions."

PROBLEMS ON FRIDAY

Red Bull contends that the fuel-flow sensor was unreliable because it had registered different readings with identical engine settings during Ricciardo's first three runs during Friday's opening practice session and the final run.

The team confirmed that it had received no explanation for this change, although Lom is "highly confident" that the data it was giving during Friday afternoon practice and the race was correct.

"The fuel-flow measurement as we began first practice appeared to be in good correlation with what we estimated would be delivered by the fuel injectors," said Red Bull's chief engineer for car engineering Paul Monaghan.

"Without an explanation and without any characteristic changes to the engine, be they measured or inferred by performance or measured by laptime, the FFM [sensor] changed its reading for P1 run four," said Monaghan.

"So we are left with two values for the sensor and no explanation was offered at the time as to why the sensor would change its value."

After using a second sensor during Saturday's running, which did not deliver any signal, the FIA ordered Red Bull to fit the original sensor and, using the appropriate offset, stick to the fuel limit.

Following this first increase in readings, Newey claimed that there was a second step during the race, with the fuel-flow sensor reading a further half-a-per-cent high.

"We see this jump at around lap 38 from around the 1.3 per cent mark to around the 1.8 per cent mark," said Newey.

"It was completely unexplainable from our point of view."

However, Lom disputes this interpretation of the data, saying "I don't see this step".

Red Bull contends that it did not exceed the maximum fuel-flow, and that it was justified in switching to its own fuel-flow model because the technical directive that states this can only be done under instruction from the FIA is not of regulatory value.

Harry doesnt like RBR, its okay we get it. Now please shutup and inciting a riot

Saying they ignored the rules blah blah blah, if you were a multi million dollar company with shareholders etc. You would be going for evey 0.1% you can get because thats how F1 is, 15hp 5hp can make or break your race and thats not bullshit. some margins are 0.1 second if you were 5hp down over a 2 minute lap well you cna fkn bet thats more than 0.1 second.

Sure if they were our shitboxes you wouldnt feel it but its not its the best drivers going for every cm so please stop carrying on (yes im picking on you because you come across as the instigator here)

The discussion has been had

/fin

two VERY diferent things there. Roy's saying you gain this extra 15 horsepower by carefully selecting your meter from a big stockpile you buy to find the most friendly unit. Get one that's 1.3% out and you get an FIA offset to correct it, not a free 15bhp extra! It's complete nonsense.

lol at Newey's justification of a reading jump at lap 38 meaning the sensor was inaccurate! They'd already switched to their own fuel flow model from lap 16 FFS! Apparently well before it was broken... http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113447

Edited by hrd-hr30

hrd...That's not what I said. But nice try. Anyway...Lets see if Renault can live up to their talk of a far more promising weekend for their power units.

didn't realised you'd changed topic from what you were saying about using 'happy' meters to gain power back to red bull in Aus.

You've got it wrong anyway. You're quoting RBR's media spin. Here's what came out in the court: http://thejudge13.com/2014/04/14/a-day-in-the-f1-appeal-court-sifting-the-evidence/

Red Bull’s beef was not that they were penalized 0.4 seconds per lap, rather that the shift from 1.2 to 1.3 in the offset demonstrated the sensor was not fit for purpose. This in fact would be a shift of 8% in the prescribed maximum flow allowed by the FIA – which would result in a reduced lap time of 0.03 seconds (8% of 0.4).

So the sensor according to Red Bull is now not fit for purpose – not inaccurate by 0.03 seconds per lap – was the call. Throw the baby out with the bath water and reclaim the entire time for the 1.2 offset ie 0.4 seconds per lap.

As I said before, it's time to stop believing Red Bull.

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...