Printable View
Yup, they put an in line voltage regulator before the fuel pump with an egg timer on it. Start the egg timer when all the lights go on and it quits regulating 3-4 seconds after all the lights go out. I just wonder if they use this egg timer:Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Perhaps 9K rpm is optimum torque for a grid start (for McLaren car/engine/gearbox combination), where the bhp of the engine is insufficient to break the tyre/tarmac traction threshold......Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Nah, way, WAY too many variables track to track; temp, surface construction, tyre compound, humidity...........
Wait, so cheating is using someone elses design, but not using materials outside their legal (to F1) specification???Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Is this a which hunt or what!
I'm amazed at your love and aspiration of known cheat, yet your which hunt of another known cheat.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Are you two faced!
Zaphod?Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
I think he also owns a robot called Marvin.
"....brain the size of a planet..........." :laugh:
No if given the ecu and its being used in its unmodified state but designing certain compoments of the engine to take advantage of it, is NOT cheating. OTOH, having some insider knowledge somehow denied to others, is another story, since one would think that defeats the very purpose.....as to you, perhaps you need to take things where they are found as that particular post refferred to the alleged secret code that gives more HP, and that ain't what I am talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
What brand of cool aid are you on?!Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
When did I encourage cheating?Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
Next time you want to pick on me, please pick :D something plausible, cause not everyone is like you!
Thats's quite clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
I was referring to you comments on Mclaren being cheats (for obvious reasons) yet Mclaren's FIA complaint against use of illegal materials (the fuel temperature was outside the allowed limits) as being poor sportsmanship to better their driver points and win the WDC.
By the way, it's "WITCH HUNT"...Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
:rotflmao: Oh boy does that bring back memories :s mokin:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhiker...40/zaphod2.jpg
LOL :) True!Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
As in "oi, witch hunt did that"? :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
Well, it looks like this issue is not to go away any time soon. Ferrari are suspecting that Kimi's electronic pump malfuctioned due to a problem with the ECU unit (It did not respond the way it was supposed to). They also are suspecting that the engine failures (so far unexplained by Ferrari- and that is huge) MIGHT have something to do with this unit as well.
Some other teams are also wondering if this unit is hindering the full potential of their cars.
I actually wonder how can a unit that was mainly designed by a McLaren company for a Mclaren car is supposed to beatifully fit in with so many other engines. Actually I am ready to say that the whole idea of having ONE electronic unit - McLaren made or not - working properly again in so mamy different cars is totally stupid and wrong. It should be reconsidered.
It's interesting that there were plenty of other cars able to finish the race without engine problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
The HW has been developed by Mclaren, the SW by Mircosoft.
Why is having a standard ECU "stupid and wrong"? Certainly the mayhem, that I very much enjoyed this past weekend, was due to not having traction control, thanks to a standard ECU. Massa's turn 1 and Glock's incidents would not have happened with TC. The racing this year is going to be as much about the driver as the equipment. In years past it was mostly about the equipment and a little about the driver.
I truly, truly hope that what happened to Ferrari in Australia was a single and isolated case (with the electronic gas pump amd MAYBE the engineS - with capital S- failures). What it matters to me is that the ECU is not affecting the values of the cars in the field. Just imagine the effects on the sport if we were to find out that just the opposite is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
Are the Ferrari "suspicions" the ones mentioned in this report where Stefano Domenicali says:Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
I don't know about other teams saying the ECU is a source of their problems, but I guess it's a neat, ready-made, excuse for poor reliability which could be down to any number of different factors.Quote:
"Today we had engine trouble, but with this rule-book the gearbox is another element to keep in check. Let's not forget that with MES (the standard ECU) we can have some problems in understanding the system, and how to integrate it with the car. We must still discover it in full."
Hey, they could take a LEAF out of the train delay excuses book as used by rail operators in Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Classic examples include;
Adverse weather conditions (wrong tyre choice?)
Congestion (never quite understood this one, they run to a timetable, so know exactly how many trains are running don't they), but could be for when they queue up in the pits......
Leaves on the line
Staff shortages (couldn't get out of bed)
Unforseen circumstances (this is a good one for blaming the ECU) alond with,
Circumstances beyond our control. (It'a all Ross's fault, he left....) :laugh:
Very true, but having a Mclaren-supplied ECU was always going to bring these types of suspicions/concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
After 2007, any 'faith' in Mclaren being fair and even-handed has been well and truly and, imo, potentially forever lost.
That's not to say that Mclaren are up to no good with the ECU....I still try to cling to the hope that they can be fair, even though I don't trust them and wish the FIA had gone to a supplier with no link to F1 (VW?), but seriously, after the repeated underhand tactics and denials of the truth that they commited last year, what does any Mclaren-loving person expect?
Yes, I know it's 'innocent until proven guilty', but likewise it's 'guilty when proven guilty' and there are some posters on here who have yet to accept that.
Interesting quote from Max on Autosport yesterday....Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
As much as I am pleased MES got the contract, would it not have been better to have either -Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Mosely
1. Gone with the majority supplier
or
2. Chosen a complete independent, say Lucas or Bosch for example.....
It's a little unusual when Max words things like that....
Lucas ?
Say goodbye to racing in the rain .
The problem with option 1 is that it in itself doesn't solve the 'suspicions' problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
I'm a fully-paid up Tifosi member, so should have been happy if Magneti Marelli had been given the contract, but it would have just opened the door to yet more 'FIA stands for Ferrari International Assistance' stuff.
Option 2 is, imo, the only option that should have been considered.
It's not Mclaren's fault that they were awarded the contract, and I have to presume that it was won in good faith and won correctly within the criteria the FIA put forward, but for the sake of 'closure' the contract being awarded to MES was not a good decision.
Personally, I very much doubt that the ECU either caused the Ferrari engine failures or, even if it was a factor, it was just an unfortunate one-off, but it would have just been so much better for the sport if a team whose name is now forever linked with serious integrity issues had been nowhere near the contract.
I agree! But let's not be hasty and jump to conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
Well the FIA has already set a precedent when they opted for a standard Bridgestone tire.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Isoroku Yamamoto
MES have not been proven guilty of anything whatsoever in relation to the ECU, and any stories & rumours there have been about 'glitches' with the unit have yet to be seen to have any foundation whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
But in this environment it seems unfounded rumours and speculation that is repeated often enough is "proof of guilt" of something...anything. It isn't anything of the sort; it's just unfounded rumours and speculation being repeated.
And I have not said that there is any foundation to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
But when Mclaren are self-confessed cheats, don't be surprised when people do not trust them.
That was my point....and it was perfectly clear.
I am surprised at the need to continually mention it, though. And even though I, as you know, came round to the view that McLaren should have been thrown out of both of last year's championships feel that the link between those events and anything to do with the ECU is taking the 'McLaren are cheats' line a bit too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
So, in your opinion Ferrari suffering 3 engine failures in the same race is just a poor engineering issue? It's just a coincidence that these failures happened just when the ECU was installed. Hum....I don't know. At Ferrari they know how to bulid engines. And I said I truly hope that you are right. it's just a coincidence. I don't dare imagining the consequences if you were not right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I think the point is , was it a good idea to take on the manufacturing of an essential part , when the potential , even if entirely impossible , is that you will be hit with a tampering scandal ?
To have the name of a competitor in the series on a part that the whole grid must use is asking for trouble , no matter what the name . To have that part be so fundamental as the ECU is foolhardy .
When exactly did they get the contract ?
There's the mitigating factor here .
I don't recall , but if it was after the excrement started to hit the air moving device , it was even more stupid on both the part of the FIA , and McLaren .
Latest rumours say that the standard ECU got a super secret on/off switch, remote controlled only by Ron Dennis himself (...the only reason why Mercedes couldnīt sack him...). The beta-version was personally tested by Bill Gates erroneously with Hamiltons machinery in Brazil last season.
You heard it here first!
According to some recent news reports, Ferrari's suffered a valve failure of some kind during the race. At least that might the official version given to press.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
Seems about 10 to six months or so ago, everyone was saying the same thing about a certain set of copy shop doucments and rumors of a certian enginneer with white powder on his pants....and then emails and such...all of which turned out to be:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
A. unfounded rumour
B. Specualtion
C. All of the bove
D. none of the above
Link please. I have been unsuccessfully looking for xtra info with no results.Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
There you go. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
http://www.turunsanomat.fi/f1/?ts=1,...4,1:0:0:0:0:0:
There are pobably some rumors flying around. They may be right. This is the latest official word:Quote:
Originally Posted by mstillhere
Engineers already have a hypothesis as to the cause and this should be confirmed once they are inspected. New engines are currently on their way from Italy to Malaysia and these will arrive on Friday, in order to be fitted for the competitive part of the weekend. As neither car finished the Australian GP, the engine change is penalty-free. Of course, current regulations require a freeze on the actual construction of the power units, but as this is not felt to be the cause of their failure in the first race and as the problem is not believed to be heat related,
Me too. But some people still believe that McLaren and RD are purer than a virgin.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
As far as I know only Bridgestone and Michelin took part in the tender.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke
With Michelin proving in 2005 that they couldn't build a capable tire for every circumstances, the obvious choice was Bridgestone.
Well then your knowledge is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I loved reading it. Except for the last two lines, where I was not too sure about a regionalism, everything else made a lot of sense. Thank you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by janneppi
Than correct it! Who else was involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by jjanicke