The Official Australian Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Discussion
Hungrymc said:
Maybe they have changed something else in the guns / system?
Do they just measure torque? No secondary measure of turn count or proximity etc?
After they had one issue, I was a little surprised that they didn’t take the extra second to get a confirmation from each corner crew on the next stop. Suspect they will be kicking themselves even more for not taking some action after the first one as they could have salvaged half the weekend.
The system is automatic. As soon as the gun disengages the nut it triggers the signal to the control system that drops the jacks when all 4 guns are off.Do they just measure torque? No secondary measure of turn count or proximity etc?
After they had one issue, I was a little surprised that they didn’t take the extra second to get a confirmation from each corner crew on the next stop. Suspect they will be kicking themselves even more for not taking some action after the first one as they could have salvaged half the weekend.
When the nut crosses they shouldn't pull the gun off the nut, they should reverse and go again.
The nuts are captive in the wheels so they don't have the option of changing to a new nut, they have to make that nut torque fully even if it's crossed a second time.
Knowing how that feels takes a lot of practice, but that crew are so understaffed they are building the pits up when others are practising.
NRS said:
pits said:
However they said they weren't going to be strong, I personally saw an 8-10th finish for both, a 5th though, I'm over the f
king moon with, and for everyone taking the piss out of the McLaren's reliability in testing, a Honda only using 1 engine (along with the other 8 in the previous test) in test 2, dead last for one a lap behind and 14 laps before mguh failure for the other.
McLaren made the right choice, I don't think they deserved 5th today, but damn it's good.
It was interesting that no one posted in the pre-season testing, after so many posters had said McLaren had messed it up moving on from Honda. Quite clearly not the case!king moon with, and for everyone taking the piss out of the McLaren's reliability in testing, a Honda only using 1 engine (along with the other 8 in the previous test) in test 2, dead last for one a lap behind and 14 laps before mguh failure for the other.McLaren made the right choice, I don't think they deserved 5th today, but damn it's good.
McLaren makes size zero rear end.
Makes Honda build engine to fit hole.
McLaren ditch Honda, keep chassis, but now have to wedge a physically bigger engine package into a hole designed for the Honda motor, I said in the testing thread that the Renault was best choice for their situation.
I expect teething problems, I don't expect the car to come good till end of the season to be fair, as far as I know, the chassis has been developed for Honda power output not Renault, everything will need adjusting and adapting to suit the engine,
For me, I'd like to see Alonso in top 5 at the end of the year, will it happen? If he's lucky, yes, but I'm thinking 6-10th based on reliability of others and themselves, certain tracks.
Can't see McLaren beating RB on raw pace, maybe towards end of the year they may get lucky.
If they can keep up points finish I probably won't care who wins drivers championship, I should be over the moon that Vettel beat Hamilton, but I'm still so pleased about McLaren's weekend, i couldn't care less
Hungrymc said:
AW111 said:
Regarding HAAS
Any news on why?
Apparently the wheel crews are the same as last year, so not novices.
Back in the dark ages, when a 10 second stop was blisteringly quick, each wheel crew would raise a hand to signal 'done' before the car was released.
No-one does that nowadays with the 2 second stops, but it would have saved HAAS a lot of money and embarrassment, and PH several pages of arguments.
Maybe they have changed something else in the guns / system? Any news on why?
Apparently the wheel crews are the same as last year, so not novices.
Back in the dark ages, when a 10 second stop was blisteringly quick, each wheel crew would raise a hand to signal 'done' before the car was released.
No-one does that nowadays with the 2 second stops, but it would have saved HAAS a lot of money and embarrassment, and PH several pages of arguments.
Do they just measure torque? No secondary measure of turn count or proximity etc?
After they had one issue, I was a little surprised that they didn’t take the extra second to get a confirmation from each corner crew on the next stop. Suspect they will be kicking themselves even more for not taking some action after the first one as they could have salvaged half the weekend.
<it's a joke, just a joke>jsf said:
The system is automatic. As soon as the gun disengages the nut it triggers the signal to the control system that drops the jacks when all 4 guns are off.
When the nut crosses they shouldn't pull the gun off the nut, they should reverse and go again.
The nuts are captive in the wheels so they don't have the option of changing to a new nut, they have to make that nut torque fully even if it's crossed a second time.
Knowing how that feels takes a lot of practice, but that crew are so understaffed they are building the pits up when others are practising.
Thank you. So the system needs to see torque hit and gun removed? I just wonder if there is another variable that could be monitored. I’ve no idea how many turns are needed but assume it’s a few (maybe 15 mm of thread?). If so, I guess a crossed thread will torque out very early in that travel. I just wonder if nut to wheel and wheel to hub proximity could be sensed. It’s easy enough to monitor number of turns, but I guess these guns fire up so quickly it’s hard to work out which turn starts the threads.... All I’m really thinking is there has to be a way for the system to know that a thread is crossed.When the nut crosses they shouldn't pull the gun off the nut, they should reverse and go again.
The nuts are captive in the wheels so they don't have the option of changing to a new nut, they have to make that nut torque fully even if it's crossed a second time.
Knowing how that feels takes a lot of practice, but that crew are so understaffed they are building the pits up when others are practising.
Gaz. said:
Hungrymc said:
Well “ fking slow “ is a stretch. But compared to F1 cars they are pretty slow. 1min 30 vs 2 min lap time at Silverstone. With a contact patch about 10%, no positive aero effect on grip, simple IC engines, all the dynamics of pitch and yaw and roll, most of the time on either the front or back wheel but rarely with any weight on both, no tub and halo to protect the rider. MotoGP is amazing.
The bikes are monsters and the riders phenomenal, but its still very slow compared to F1. And that’s the point, F1 cars are technically astonsishing - watching the Q2 laps on Saturday was unbelievable. All the tech makes passing very hard on tracks like Melbourne but it doesn’t make F1 any less of an amazing form of motorsport.
I’m surprised more people don’t respect and enjoy both (for different reasons).
Exactly, love both.king slow “ is a stretch. But compared to F1 cars they are pretty slow. 1min 30 vs 2 min lap time at Silverstone. With a contact patch about 10%, no positive aero effect on grip, simple IC engines, all the dynamics of pitch and yaw and roll, most of the time on either the front or back wheel but rarely with any weight on both, no tub and halo to protect the rider. MotoGP is amazing.The bikes are monsters and the riders phenomenal, but its still very slow compared to F1. And that’s the point, F1 cars are technically astonsishing - watching the Q2 laps on Saturday was unbelievable. All the tech makes passing very hard on tracks like Melbourne but it doesn’t make F1 any less of an amazing form of motorsport.
I’m surprised more people don’t respect and enjoy both (for different reasons).
Norfolkit said:
REALIST123 said:
Car-Matt said:
I don’t understand what you mean by an overtake such as Sebs?
Seb passed Hamilton when Hamilton stopped under normal conditions and rejoined behind him. Seb then stopped under the safety car (VSC) and rejoined still in the lead.
Gaining an advantage under the safety car has been part of the sport for many many years and a part of which Hamilton has been a beneficiary many times.
I really don’t see your point.
He has no point, you’re right. Seb passed Hamilton when Hamilton stopped under normal conditions and rejoined behind him. Seb then stopped under the safety car (VSC) and rejoined still in the lead.
Gaining an advantage under the safety car has been part of the sport for many many years and a part of which Hamilton has been a beneficiary many times.
I really don’t see your point.
Mercedes made a misjudgement today and it cost them the race. Just like RBR made a misjudgement two years ago in Monaco and it cost them the race.
Don’t remember many grumbles on here at that time.
1 "Gaining an advantage under the safety car has been part of the sport for many many years". But it wasn't a Safety Car it was a VSC, the very thing that was introduced to iron out the problems with a full safety car, the idea being - nobody gains, nobody loses,
The VSC was to make sure that despite safety car conditions you couldn't have drivers exceeding the speed of the safety car until they caught the back of the queue in part response to Jules Bianchi's accident
Do at least pretend to follow the sport
For completeness here's a link explaining it http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/safety_car_virt...
Edited by Car-Matt on Tuesday 27th March 10:44
Car-Matt said:
you couldn't have drivers exceeding the speed of the safety car until they caught the back of the queue in part response to Jules Bianchi's accident
How do you catch something without traveling quicker than it?But I get your point, it stops cars traveling at racing speed to join the back of the SC queue. And it addresses the general ignoring or looking for advantage we used to see when double waved yellow was the only option below a full SC.
Vaud said:
I have a treatise for a new F1 but I will create a new thread.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...It's up... probably a load on nonsense, feel free to pull it apart.
Regarding the VSC would it not be better for all the cars to have a speed limit button which needs to be pressed to ensure the procedure is fair and exact?
The FIA state that drivers have to stay above a minimum time set by the FIA at least once in each marshalling sector. This seems a very strange way of allowing drivers to regulate this as there are bound to be drivers making up and losing time.
The FIA also state that teams are only allowed to enter the pits if they need tyres. What other reason would they enter the pits???
Surely the pits should be closed unless a car is about to retire.
Not saying I was not happy to see what happened on Sunday but I would rather things be 100% fair.
The FIA state that drivers have to stay above a minimum time set by the FIA at least once in each marshalling sector. This seems a very strange way of allowing drivers to regulate this as there are bound to be drivers making up and losing time.
The FIA also state that teams are only allowed to enter the pits if they need tyres. What other reason would they enter the pits???
Surely the pits should be closed unless a car is about to retire.
Not saying I was not happy to see what happened on Sunday but I would rather things be 100% fair.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Regarding the VSC would it not be better for all the cars to have a speed limit button which needs to be pressed to ensure the procedure is fair and exact?
So then we'd have drivers pootling around at 5% through fast corners and pushing like fk at 105% trying to gain an advantage through the slow corners, yeah seems smart...The VSC serves a purpose, as with an actual safety car it presents some interesting strategy permutations. Ferrari took a risk on strategy which paid off beautifully, we the viewers are treated to a twist and a shock result, Hamilton's 5th WDC is pushed back by one race (COTA maybe?) A lot of positives IMO
Byker28i said:
Didn't one of the US race series put a strip across the rear wing at a set height and width to create a hole in the air for the car behind?
If I was an aerodynamicist for an F1 team, I'd be making sure our car created the worst possible wake for any following cars, without compromising our drag, downforce, etc.It's a no-brainer, but how do you frame rules to combat it?
Byker28i said:
slipstream 1985 said:
Standardised front wing but the design is from the team/car that finished last in the constructors the previous season?
Didn't one of the US race series put a strip across the rear wing at a set height and width to create a hole in the air for the car behind?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff