It's because of fraud.

People claim for things they shouldn't ("I pay for the insurance, so I want something out of it"). This is fraud.
Insurance firms are greedy. Not technically fraud I guess!
Young people drive like twats and damage other peoples' property. Also not technically fraud
Motor traders hike prices for insurance work. This is fraudulent practice in my opinion.
Car hire firms get on the case and charge extra-stupid sums for a week/months hire. This is fraudulent practice in my opinion.

And a lot of other things too.

I did read the whole report! And I still think they weren't actually guilty of running too much fuel, but of not doing the right thing as per the regs. The FIA had to DQ them for breaching the fuel flow figures (as that's what their sensor said), but I don't think they actually were.

I agree that the engineers made some large errors by taking matters into their own hands.

The ballistic sheild was, as far as I'm aware, first spotted from dyno photos of the Ferrari engine compared to similar photos from Merc/Renault dynos. But, of course, I am prepared to be corrected on that

With the dodgy sensors, I'm not sure they have 'agreed to race', and probably had bigger fish to fry with gettings things to work for more than 10 laps at a time. There is, and still is, a lot of finger crossing going in down the pitlane regarding all of the new engine stuff.

Will be fascinating to see how it all unfolds.

Instead of pitot tubes then, how about the injectors (which I think are an FIA defined part) - we haven't heard F1 teams talking openly about how good/accurate/poor/inaccurate they are. Even though someone could be disqualified over them, until there is an actual problem then it's a non-issue.

But the issues you raised were the ones the fans could see, from photos. They were discussed in the fan domain. The teams/FIA discuss a lot more than we ever know about. If the FIA sensors were good enough, it wouldn't be an issue. But they're not good enough for F1 as a legality control. And unless you can guarantee the measurements, I don't think the FIA should be using them as a go-no-go check.

Now it's a known issue (publicly) we'll hear a lot more from other teams about these, and I expect the FIA/Gill/the calibrators to revise the sensors soon, or put in place a better backup method.

RB weren't excluded for using too much fuel, but for not following "the procedure" if a sensor isn't working properly. No doubt RB won't use the same tecnique again, and other teams will be hastily revising their other backup plans and maps so that they can't fall into the same trap.

Why should we hear stories from testing? They weren't being scrutineered, and flow rate validation is hardly newsworthy. We don't hear that the pitot tubes for 2014 are 0.1% inaccurate. It's only a problem when the Gill sensors say you're using too much fuel against a legal limit, but the engine is actually injecting less than the legal amount. And that's only a news issue when someone fails scrutineering.

I had heard rumours that teams were struggling to get a match, both in F1 and in WEC, which use the same sensor.

Quote from PhilS13 :

Anyone know what is the +- varation of the sensors after calibration and what was the % difference before and after the "switch" that occurred during FP ?

I don't see how they can win that appeal. Even if the sensor was faulty there is a procedure for that and they chose not to follow it.

I think this is just the beginning...if the sensors aren't operating at absolute perfection we will have those kind of irregularites all season long.

Without the flow limit they would have had the option to build an engine that outputs a million hp in Q and turn it down in the race. Those engines would have cost a shitload of money to develop. Fuel flow limit is a cost saving measure.

Was reported yesterday. From memory (apologies if wrong):

91% of sensors are accurate to 0.25%
52% of sensors are accurate to 0.1%

Which doesn't seem good enough to me either... And each sensor is something like £10,000!!!!!!!!

Quote from Shotglass :

so much wrong with that
1) the first element of the rear wing has a fairly high aoa of 14-15° (depending on the track and so on of course) as you can see from the best side on image i was able to find (not ideal but its sufficiently close to being exactly from the side that perspective errors dont make much of a difference)
2) for lift cause while reversing the rear wing will have the largest effect which is a 2 element wing on an f1
3) the elements arent seperate wings operating in their own flow regimes the elements for an overal wing with a fairly high aoa (~25° in the attached image) with a slot that serves to energise the boundary layer (similar to how leading edge slats work) allowing the wing to operate at those silly high aoas without stalling



no they dont



yes it is (at least as far as upper body downforce is concerned)
unless you accelerate air up your car wont accelerate down
newtons 3rd law and so forth



1) if aoa wasnt all important how does a plane fly upside down?
and again
2) the first element has a high aoa
3) the elements arent seperate wings

Your first three points are exactly what I'm saying. The profile shape is what your diagram attachment shows. It isn't a flat plank at some angle. It's a shape. The shape is the important part. The profile is the important part.

I couldn't understand some of your points because of your weird idea about punctuation, so I'll skip them.

The elements are separate wings. You could take one off and leave the other. They work together, but they are individual parts. Actually, in F1 they probably are now moulded as one part, but typically they have always been separate parts.

Exactly. The air hits the first element, which turns the air so that it meets the second element with quite a low AoA. The effect of air 'hitting' the steeply inclined section is negligible.

If AoA was all important, then why do they bother with the 'flat' first element at all? Get rid of it, save the weight, and just have a wing at high AoA to make it work....

And cars and planes wings work in the same way - just different compromises required.

Look at F1 wings. The first element has a very low AoA, and the air coming goes upwards. The second element has a low AoA to that airflow, but larger against the ground.. The third element is even more steeply angled, but it's AoA to the air that's hitting it is surprisingly low.

Look at planes - they always fly with their wings at 15° AoA. Don't they??

Also, I didn't say that zero AoA is 'best' in any way, shape or form. You don't run a flat wing at high angles of attack, cars and planes do run profiles at lots of angles - the profile is the more important part.

But if Steam/Valve cease trading, how are you expecting to get 'what you own'?

I didn't say AoA has no influence. But the profile is the major factor (to do it efficiently anyway) - you don't see F1 cars running planks of 2x4 as wings.

Which is a shame, as the cars will look silly on big wheels with rubber bands. It's not improved a road car yet, and it won't improve a racing car. All the best cars have <14" wheels.

But you've been playing racing games and been quick enough by now to surely have read one or two basics - softer front generally = less understeer. Longer gear ratios = higher top speed but less acceleration. We're talking really really basic stuff, that even the most retarded setup guides get right. And there are a lot of simulator setup guides.

It's like being an amateur photographer with an expensive DSLR camera but not knowing what shutter speed does. At all.

That IS quite retarded.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Oh yes.. Default setup, have no idea how to improve it

Wiki is often accurate. It's people's misinterpretation that is the problem a lot of the time

Regarding an earlier reply to me, I have no doubt that 'road fuel' would produce less power than "race fuel", for the simple fact of knock resistance and combustion temperatures rather than calorific value.

It won't be much different. It's still gasoline. You could add stuff to make it burn more efficiently (i.e. Reduce knock sensitivity) but you can significantly change the density or the calorific content.

Quote from Intrepid :

Nope, the ERS system (not KERS as the energy recovery now includes energy recovery fitted to the turbo) will not be deployed via a button. The deployment well be via engine management systems.

I am sure the early races will be chaotic but it won't be long before everyone figures out the new systems and it'll be pretty much as we were.

My bad. I thought TERS was ECU controlled and KERS was driver controlled still. Haven't had time to read the rules (of many websites with vaguely detailed technical summaries that mentioned this).

So that's a shame then. If they are going to have "planet saving" gimmicks on the cars, I would like them to add to the spectacle and not just individual laptimes.

Quote from Intrepid :

As oppose to manly endurance racing ? By the way KERS is no more. I don't even think they have the boost button. The ERS is integrated into the power management.

No, just back to the good old days of drivers having to look after cars, rather than 100 minutes of qualifying laps. And not just because of tyres.

KERS for 2014 is up to 161hp for up to 33 seconds per lap. It will still be deployed in attack and defense, but stands a chance of fending off a DRS-only pass.

I think 2014 F1 is going to be awesome in every way - retirements, mistakes, managing tyres and fuel rather than girly sprint racing, crazy KERS leading to strategic passing/defending, and a far better noise than the daft screams of recent years.

I don't think the population trends have much to do with it. If we are going to replace coal and oil with something that can last into the future, then nuclear is the only sensible solution. "Renewables" aren't man enough unless every square meter of land and sea is covered in the harmful and inefficient wind farms, solar isn't viable on a massive scale unless and has quite an environmental impact, etc etc.

No, nuclear isn't free from drawbacks, but it has the fewest problems per megawatt output. In my opinion.

Just like electric cars (either pure electric or with range extenders as opposed to current hybrids) are only a flawed stop-gap until something better is invented/discovered/embraced, so current renewables are a short term fix.

Stupidity more like. Nothing to fear.

Except all 3 actually know that. It wasn't a case of knowing anything, but a way of being silly and ending with powerful images of a misunderstood disaster.

Maybe people will read up on Chernobyl and realise nuclear power is the only way to go.

Which is the best way to fund TV!

Quote from AtomAnt :

Season 1 was 1989
http://www.primewire.ag/tv-523 ... ear/season-1989-episode-1


Hi Cliffe. How are all those cars sir.

Happy Valentines Day (Just in case yah didn't get a card today)

Ant

Thanks Ant. Suspect my girlfriend will make me feel more special...

I didn't say when Top Gear started. I meant when the original show finished. That's when you have to back to.

Some of our cars were on the original show, but we've declined every request by new Top Gear to borrow a car - they tend to break cars and not pay for them, and we could do without that hassle.

You have to go back to... 1996 (?) since Top Gear was intended to be informative.

Top Gear has been like this since 2002. It's not meant to be informative or serious. It's meant to be people messing about in cars.

Don't start moaning that 1p in your annual salary goes towards Top Gear as if that's wrong. Imagine how awful TV would be if it was all paid for by advertising. No thanks. I'd happily pay ten times the licence fee to avoid that.

Not quite sure why , after 12 years, TG haters are still watching it. Maybe they're idiots.

P1 section amazing. Clarkson looked genuinely terrified by the speed at times. I want one.