Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Tool had better smarten his act up if he wants to be kept on as Dans #2 next year. Probably cost him a podium with that bullshit.

McLaren - slowest of the Merc runners. Hope Honda has something special for next year.

I like Dan as much as the next guy, but I think that was a fair call by Seb. They weren't on completely different strategies/tyres so thats racing, so the team orders should have been ignored.

x2. Seb showed at Bahrain he'll do the right thing and let the other guy through if they're on different strategies, but if they're racing for position, its a race. Dan was easily good enough though. He's a real surprise packet for me this year. They mentioned during the race he's probably more used to having to fight cars with less downorce, but you'd expect Vettel to have got the hang of these cars by now if he's going to. Also Dans wet pace is really surprising. As team mates, JEV normally had his measure in the wet, but this year Dan's right on it in wet conditions. He's stepped it up and all signs are he's got Vettel's measure in qualy and racing. Impressive!

Good interesting race. I was expecting Red Bull to be a bit closer to the Mercs with Renault saying they're now at very close to peak performance in the lead up to this race. And Lotus getting the same Renault engine spec that Red Bull had last round certainly helped them in qualy. But it was Alonso outta nowhere as the big improver! Where did his pace come from? Lucky he didn't take himself out at the start though.

Edited by hrd-hr30

Funny. Snowman said as a joke that the first question for Jev this year should be "what do you hope to achieve in your last season of F1?"

Ted Kravitz is already talking about a paddock rumour that a mid season STR driver change is being entertained unless JEV finds pace.

Kyvat has been impressive given age, kms and experience of F1.

Everyone is all for team orders when it's to help an Australian...

I think Vettel was well within his rights to ignore the order this time.

It depends on what is said in the briefing prior to the race. If they agree to it Reuteman style and then change their minds when it suits them then they deserve all the vitriol heaped upon them. Red Bull cant have not discussed it, surely?

Just interested to see how the dynamic works for Tool now that he is the second quickest driver in the team. Kind of reduces your leverage that does. Atleast we dont have to go back to Ferrari style team orders.

what i have a problem is, is fom released chat from red bull saying 'let dan through', then vettel asks what tyres hes on, and says the 'tough luck' call, but for vettel then to 'concede' the position as he said after the race you have to assume the team must have said something again to him about the differing strategies, something that either never aired on the tv to cause all this drama or vettel didnt want to concede and dan passed him anyway... and then didnt want it to look like dan passed him anyway....

unless there was more radio traffic that i missed?

Everyone is all for team orders when it's to help an Australian...

I think Vettel was well within his rights to ignore the order this time.

I think the fact that dan was able to get past and then pull a gap and stay away, and that it was still early in the race showed that the call was made right and vettel should've just let him go a bit more easily, although it ended up being an easy pass since he went too deep into turn 1 and ended up on the dirty outside line.

Had Dan been struggling the same as vettel then I'd not be upset if he was told to move over. If it was in the last few laps then it may be a different story and I'd take that on a case by case situation, but with 32 laps to go, get out of the way. The faster car has right of way.

Everyone is all for team orders when it's to help an Australian...

I think Vettel was well within his rights to ignore the order this time.

Well you can take me off that list of everyone. Don't think youbwill read me having said anything....was funny though...at least Vettel snuck a funny line in

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...