Sebastian Vettel took the lead ahead of turn 1, never to give it away again and went on to win the Korean GP in controlled fashion. Mark Webber ran the entire race in second place and set the race's fastest lap. Fernando Alonso finished third, ahead of Felipe Massa.
Raptor22 wrote:a broken anti roll bar will cause the car to use more of it front tyres, resulting in graining. The reduced adhesive surface of the tyre gives t less grip and driver compensates by turning in earlier and braking earlier. Probably like short shifting so I reckon around 0,5sec a lap
Worst case scenario, the inside tyre will lift off the ground. Look at Q3 Turkey 2010 for example. A complete failure of the rear ARB caused the car to constantly lean on the outside rear, lifting the inside front completely off the ground.
Raptor22 wrote:a broken anti roll bar will cause the car to use more of it front tyres, resulting in graining. The reduced adhesive surface of the tyre gives t less grip and driver compensates by turning in earlier and braking earlier. Probably like short shifting so I reckon around 0,5sec a lap
Worst case scenario, the inside tyre will lift off the ground. Look at Q3 Turkey 2010 for example. A complete failure of the rear ARB caused the car to constantly lean on the outside rear, lifting the inside front completely off the ground.
Yeah but the outside front is therefore taking more of the cornering load
Raptor22 wrote:a broken anti roll bar will cause the car to use more of it front tyres, resulting in graining. The reduced adhesive surface of the tyre gives t less grip and driver compensates by turning in earlier and braking earlier. Probably like short shifting so I reckon around 0,5sec a lap
Worst case scenario, the inside tyre will lift off the ground. Look at Q3 Turkey 2010 for example. A complete failure of the rear ARB caused the car to constantly lean on the outside rear, lifting the inside front completely off the ground.
Yeah but the outside front is therefore taking more of the cornering load
Sure, but this allows to clean up graining faster. Problem is moved to outside front tyre wear as it happened to Redbull in Korea. They always run very stiff front ARB because of Newey's setup philosophy.
...
Last edited by mx_tifoso on 22 Nov 2012, 03:54, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:removed link. please don't spam!
Chuckjr wrote:How common is a roll bar fail? Is it a complex part in an F1 car?
It's not complex per se - it's literally just a bar with an arm at each end. The arms are connected to the suspension on each side of the car. It allows the wheels to move up or down together but resists them moving in opposite directions (as when the car rolls).
As for failure - it shouldn't be a common issue at all. There are a number of reasons for it to fail but the most likely is that the two bars came from a single batch of bars and there is a problem with the batch. McLaren will probably now scrap the rest of that batch and use/make another batch.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Another failure mode might be on the linkage connecting the rod to the suspension arms. I've had a rear roll bar pull out of the link twice in one of my cars during a track day. It turned out to be a bad linkage.
I do not see why a roll bar in itself would fail. It's basically a metal rod. Unless F1 cars has a different sort of anti-roll bar/sway bar.
I don't understand all these especulations about Mclaren doing in purpose the failure of Hamilton's car. Risking his life?
And Ted's observation reminds me the british press that always is looking for the conflict between parts just to have some headlines, kind of News of The World.
I asume that Mclaren are not happy losing Hamilton at the end of the year, but they are professionals and also would like to have the chance to win constractors championship. And the best opportunity this weekend to get some good points was with Hamilton. Yes, relationships could be a bit tense because Hamilton could bring any data to Mercedes but i don't believe they are not helping him 100% and less after so many years.
About the failure of same part on two races on a row, well I am not engineer or technician to understand how the material and how it functions but It could be a manufacturer failure coming both parts from same box. Sometimes in this world we are living there are industrial errors that mean in call backs or replacements, example brake toyota failure. So it might happen that the two pieces were build on same way and there is a failure on that process and maybe, they are understanding now but obiously will not tell.
On Ted's comments, well if someone is late to my party and already there are some friends on it, I am starting the party. I guess in a tie schedule as F1 you can not be waiting for so long for someone is late, you start and when the person is arriving you carry on. I don't see what it is the problem there. Only if you are looking for meanings that don't exist.
On a lighter note, it's amusing to think that the parallel misfortunes or fall from grace of McLaren & Mercedes (as evidenced from this race) are intrinsically linked to karmic payback for the HAM-Merc deal-with-the-devil.
Last edited by ArchAngel on 15 Oct 2012, 15:43, edited 1 time in total.
It's very true, that kind of defensive move has actually been banned now, as you must at all times leave space for a car that is along side (along side being defined as any part of the front wing being beside any part of the rear wheel). It doesn't matter if you've moved to defend or not, hulk was along side, and therefore should have been given room.
It's very true, that kind of defensive move has actually been banned now, as you must at all times leave space for a car that is along side (along side being defined as any part of the front wing being beside any part of the rear wheel). It doesn't matter if you've moved to defend or not, hulk was along side, and therefore should have been given room.
Hulk did the overtake outside the track. SV got a penalty for this at germany this year, in this case the stewards don't even have a second look.
WilliamsF1 wrote:Hulk did the overtake outside the track. SV got a penalty for this at germany this year, in this case the stewards don't even have a second look.
Vettel wasn't squeezed off the track though, he just chose to go there.
WilliamsF1 wrote:Hulk did the overtake outside the track. SV got a penalty for this at germany this year, in this case the stewards don't even have a second look.
Vettel wasn't squeezed off the track though, he just chose to go there.
Didn't Webber overtake after being squeezed off the track in Singapore and still receive a penalty? I can't really remember
WilliamsF1 wrote:Hulk did the overtake outside the track. SV got a penalty for this at germany this year, in this case the stewards don't even have a second look.
Vettel wasn't squeezed off the track though, he just chose to go there.
Didn't Webber overtake after being squeezed off the track in Singapore and still receive a penalty? I can't really remember
Could be, It would seem though that another clarification may be in order if they mean to allow such manoeuvres (as it seems), because it's very clear to me that the clarification re giving enough room for an opponent to stay on track outlaws this behaviour.
"...and there, very much in flames, is Jacques Laffite's Ligier. That's obviously a turbo blaze, and of course, Laffite will be able to see that conflagration in his mirrors... he is coolly parking the car somewhere safe."Murray Walker, San Marino 1985
