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

    • Well, that's kinda the point. The calipers might interfere with the inside of the barrels 16" rims are only about 14" inside the barrels, which is ~350mm, and 334mm rotors only leave about 8mm outboard for the caliper before you get to 350, And.... that;s not gunna be enough. If the rims have a larger ID than that, you might sneak it in. I'd be putting a measuring stick inside the wheel and eyeballing the extra required for the caliper outboard of the rotor before committing to bolting it all on.
    • OK, so again it has been a bit of a break but it was around researching what had been done since I didn't have access to Neil's records and not everything is obvious without pulling stuff apart. Happily the guy who assembled the engine had kept reasonable records, so we now know the final spec is: Bottom end: Standard block and crank Ross 86.5mm forgies, 9:1 compression Spool forged rods Standard main bolts Oil pump Spool billet gears in standard housing Aeroflow extended and baffled sump Head Freshly rebuilt standard head with new 80lb valve springs Mild porting/port match Head oil feed restrictor VCT disabled Tighe 805C reground cams (255 duration, 8.93 lift)  Adjustable cam gears on inlet/exhaust Standard head bolts, gasket not confirmed but assumed MLS External 555cc Nismo injectors Z32 AFM Bosch 023 Intank fuel pump Garret 2871 (factory housings and manifold) Hypertune FFP plenum with standard throttle   Time to book in a trip to Unigroup
    • I forgot about my shiny new plates!
    • Well, apparently they do fit, however this wont be a problem if not because the car will be stationary while i do the suspension work. I was just going to use the 16's to roll the old girl around if I needed to. I just need to get the E90 back on the road first. Yes! I'm a believer! 🙌 So, I contacted them because the site kinda sucks and I was really confused about what I'd need. They put together a package for me and because I was spraying all the seat surfaces and not doing spot fixes I decided not to send them a headrest to colour match, I just used their colour on file (and it was spot on).  I got some heavy duty cleaner, 1L of colour, a small bottle of dye hardener and a small bottle of the dye top coat. I also got a spray gun as I needed a larger nozzle than the gun I had and it was only $40 extra. From memory the total was ~$450 ish. Its not cheap but the result is awesome. They did add repair bits and pieces to the quote originally and the cost came down significantly when I said I didn't need any repair products. I did it over a weekend. The only issues I had were my own; I forgot to mix the hardener into the dye two coats but I had enough dye for 2 more coats with the hardener. I also just used up all the dye because why not and i rushed the last coat which gave me some runs. Thankfully the runs are under the headrests. The gun pattern wasn't great, very round and would have been better if it was a line. It made it a little tricky to get consistent coverage and I think having done the extra coats probably helped conceal any coverage issues. I contacted them again a few months later so I could get our X5 done (who the f**k thought white leather was a good idea for a family car?!) and they said they had some training to do in Sydney and I could get a reduced rate on the leather fix in the X5 if I let them demo their product on our car. So I agreed. When I took Bec in the E39 to pick it up, I showed them the job I'd done in my car and they were all (students included) really impressed. Note that they said the runs I created could be fixed easily at the time with a brush or an air compressor gun. So, now with the two cars done I can absolutely recommend Colourlock.  I'll take pics of both interiors and create a new thread.
    • Power is fed to the ECU when the ignition switch is switched to IGN, at terminal 58. That same wire also connects to the ECCS relay to provide both the coil power and the contact side. When the ECU sees power at 58 it switches 16 to earth, which pulls the ECCS relay on, which feeds main power into the ECU and also to a bunch of other things. None of this is directly involved in the fuel pump - it just has to happen first. The ECU will pull terminal 18 to earth when it wants the fuel pump to run. This allows the fuel pump relay to pull in, which switches power on into the rest of the fuel pump control equipment. The fuel pump control regulator is controlled from terminal 104 on the ECU and is switched high or low depending on whether the ECU thinks the pump needs to run high or low. (I don't know which way around that is, and it really doesn't matter right now). The fuel pump control reg is really just a resistor that controls how the power through the pump goes to earth. Either straight to earth, or via the resistor. This part doesn't matter much to us today. The power to the fuel pump relay comes from one of the switched wires from the IGN switch and fusebox that is not shown off to the left of this page. That power runs the fuel pump relay coil and a number of other engine peripherals. Those peripherals don't really matter. All that matters is that there should be power available at the relay when the key is in the right position. At least - I think it's switched. If it's not switched, then power will be there all the time. Either way, if you don't have power there when you need it (ie, key on) then it won't work. The input-output switching side of the relay gains its power from a line similar (but not the same as) the one that feeds the ECU. SO I presume that is switched. Again, if there is not power there when you need it, then you have to look upstream. And... the upshot of all that? There is no "ground" at the fuel pump relay. Where you say: and say that pin 1 Black/Pink is ground, that is not true. The ECU trigger is AF73, is black/pink, and is the "ground". When the ECU says it is. The Blue/White wire is the "constant" 12V to power the relay's coil. And when I say "constant", I mean it may well only be on when the key is on. As I said above. So, when the ECU says not to be running the pump (which is any time after about 3s of switching on, with no crank signal or engine speed yet), then you should see 12V at both 1 and 2. Because the 12V will be all the way up to the ECU terminal 18, waiting to be switched to ground. When the ECU switches the fuel pump on, then AF73 should go to ~0V, having been switched to ground and the voltage drop now occurring over the relay coil. 3 & 5 are easy. 5 is the other "constant" 12V, that may or may not be constant but will very much want to be there when the key is on. Same as above. 3 goes to the pump. There should never be 12V visible at 3 unless the relay is pulled in. As to where the immobiliser might have been spliced into all this.... It will either have to be on wire AF70 or AF71, whichever is most accessible near the alarm. Given that all those wires run from the engine bay fusebox or the ECU, via the driver's area to the rear of the car, it could really be either. AF70 will be the same colour from the appropriate fuse all the way to the pump. If it has been cut and is dangling, you should be able to see that  in that area somewhere. Same with AF71.   You really should be able to force the pump to run. Just jump 12V onto AF72 and it should go. That will prove that the pump itself is willing to go along with you when you sort out the upstream. You really should be able to force the fuel pump relay on. Just short AF73 to earth when the key is on. If the pump runs, then the relay is fine, and all the power up to both inputs on the relay is fine. If it doesn't run (and given that you checked the relay itself actually works) then one or both of AF70 and AF71 are not bringing power to the game.
×
×
  • Create New...