'New' photo posters: http://www.tineye.com is your friend.
http://www.tineye.com/search/9e81d73656 ... 51c0b4d55/
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Team: Adrian Newey (CTO), Petr Prodromou (CA), Rob Marshall (CD), Christian Horner (TP)
Drivers: Sebastian Vettel (1), Mark Webber (2), Sebastian Buemi (reserve)
They sound interesting so please do post them in the right thread, or start a thread saying "Which RB car is this?" and I'll move it to the right place once it has been identified.CottrellGP wrote:If anyone is interested i have some close up pics of the RB8 from the Autosport show, and a shot of inside the tunnel on sidepods, if you would like me to share then just let me know. Im not gonna upload them now because i know there from an earlier spec car and maybe useless.
Adrian Newey has confirmed reports an eleventh-hour ban by the FIA was a serious setback to Red Bull's 2012 preparations.
It emerged in recent days that, just as the reigning champions were preparing to test debut the ultimately title-winning RB8, F1's governing body banned Newey's solution to the new blown exhaust clampdown.
"It set us back further than we thought," Briton Newey told Germany's Auto Motor und Sport.
"When we looked at the new rules, we thought the effects would be less severe, especially because we thought we could compensate well."
However, the FIA said Red Bull could not use its proposed 2012 exhaust solution.
"So because of the lack of time, we went to the first test with a conventional exhaust in the engine cowling," said Newey. Frantic work behind the scenes then began on a so-called 'Coanda' solution.
He revealed that the banned 2012 solution was a sophisticated sort of rear brake duct that absorbed exhaust gases.
"There was a loophole in the rules for the area behind the rear suspension," said designer Newey. "So you could have something that collects the gases and transports them where you want them."
The FIA quickly closed the loophole, leaving Red Bull scrambling for balance at the start of 2012.
"It was hard to find a balance, yes," Newey confirmed. "We had understeer, oversteer, often booth simultaneously."
He says often that the FIA's constant crusade against innovation is frustrating.
"We should be careful that the rules don't restrict the inventive spirit. The beauty of Formula One is the struggle of man against man but also machine against machine.
"There is something for every interest. The more stringent the rules are, the faster we move towards 'GP1'. Do we want that?
"I'm surprised how many of my colleagues at the meetings of the technical working group make the case for more restrictions. It's as if we are letting the turkeys vote for Christmas."
Interesting. If I am correct, there has to be within a certain distance and radius of the exhaust exit, no bodywork. Could they have found a potentional loophole which could have allowed it anyway? And what do they mean with "absorbing"? Just a channel or something different?"So you could have something that collects the gases and transports them where you want them."
Some people think that the ability to use google makes them a hacker. LOL!gilgen wrote:Why do posters keep posting old photos of past cars?
In the actual rules is written that no bodywork has tu be in the cone up to the rear axle. Why are they not using their solution as it would have been located behind the axle as Newey said?turbof1 wrote:Interesting. If I am correct, there has to be within a certain distance and radius of the exhaust exit, no bodywork. Could they have found a potentional loophole which could have allowed it anyway? And what do they mean with "absorbing"? Just a channel or something different?
To memory, Newey said there was a TD that came out around November 2011 that practically illegalised his solution.matt21 wrote:In the actual rules is written that no bodywork has tu be in the cone up to the rear axle. Why are they not using their solution as it would have been located behind the axle as Newey said?turbof1 wrote:Interesting. If I am correct, there has to be within a certain distance and radius of the exhaust exit, no bodywork. Could they have found a potentional loophole which could have allowed it anyway? And what do they mean with "absorbing"? Just a channel or something different?
The "fail" pattern appears in the radio messages when some of the Sensors on the car doesn't work. Then, the driver has to press the corresponding number from his steering wheel - the +1 is on the right side, the -10 is on the left, as far as I remember. This is done to acknowledge the issue and to stop sending responses to the ECU.Juzh wrote:Just came across this bit of radio chatter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1kBYzrfN00
What on earth is rocky on about with all those fail 5, fail 05, fail 14....?