2012 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

lukenwolf said:
c) Since engines are not built to explode after 400km anymore, a well run-in engine that is still far away from max expected service life may actually be a safer bet than a brand spanking new one. I don't know how closely related F1 engines are to the AGA you find under your own bonnet, but in a normal consumer car you're supposed to break the engine in, before giving it the full wellies. Since they had no free practice to break-in a new motor, it could have been a counter-productive idea.
Click to expand...

"If it ain't broke don't fix it". Seems the most likely reason. Also, this engine was always inteded to be used for this race anyway, so why bother changing things? Plus probably a little of the other two reasons.

I would be interested to know Red Bull's engine schedule to see what races that engine had already done.

Since we're talking about Red Bull, this clip of Vettel's pit stop has been causing all kinds of consipracy theories about RB having possible rubber/flexible nosecones.

http://img171.imageshack.**/img171/645/boomer.gif

Not sure what I make of it really, but there is certainly some movement there.
 
as long as it passes FIA scrutineering, it's legal!
 
What kind of material would that bit be made of?
 
LOL, don't you just love this? :lol: Is it just me or are people becoming desperate to find something to stop Vettel from winning? :lol: First, complaints about them taking the car out of Parc ferme - didn't wash it's in the rules. Next, demanding penalty for the overtake on Grosjean - didn't wash either, he gave the position back. Now we're into conspiracies, even though the car has been scrutinized at least a dozen time by FIA :lol:
 
lukenwolf said:
LOL, don't you just love this? :lol: Is it just me or are people becoming desperate to find something to stop VettelSchumacher from winning? :lol: First, complaints about them taking the car out of Parc ferme overtaking the leader during the formation lap - didn't wash it's not even in the rules. Next, demanding penaltydisqualifying for the overtake on Grosjean - didn't wash either too thin of a floorboard despite going over high kerbs during a spin. Now we're into conspiracies, even though the car has been scrutinized at least a dozen time by FIA :lol:
Click to expand...

Welcome to 1994!
 
Gingertom said:
http://img171.imageshack.**/img171/645/boomer.gif

Not sure what I make of it really, but there is certainly some movement there.
Click to expand...

What the actual fuck? Toy car?
 
They've been discussing it ad-nauseam on autosport. Someone that is generally accepted to work for/having deep connections with McLaren has said it's not out of the normal.

They only make pieces of bodywork as thick as it needs to be to pass structural tests and the structure that holds the camera in place is most likely thin weaves of carbon fiber attached to the crash structure.
 
It doesn't seem to be in a place where the flex would cause any advantage... if anything it'd allow those little camera pods to flex? What ever downforce do those generate?
 
Likely just reducing the moment of inertia by moving mass towards the vertical axis, and potentially lowering the centre of gravity as well.
 
I am not even sure if it is flexing that much or if it's more a combination of the mechanic's hand movement and the blue glove reflecting in the yellow nose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top