Crash.Net User: 107SS2009

Comments rating: 937
Position in rating: 105

Show Comments on:

107SS2009

April 11, 2014 1:42 PM

F1 » Red Bull appeal success ‘would be bad for the sport’


And reverting back to the original argument/s from on the old thread page/s those from on there who are back on here (this page) can rest assured that technically speaking the readings the teams use for their fuel flow measurements namely that by injector mapping reading can never be as accurate as the FIA homologated FFM for the simple reason that the tolerances of the FFM are much smaller and also because the parameters it measures are much more.

107SS2009

April 11, 2014 2:42 PM

F1 » Red Bull appeal success ‘would be bad for the sport’


Richard, the exact wording said found to have “threads drilled-out”, now let’s sort this out by common sense, the FIA does not say where the threads are, they can be mounting threads as well as fuel line threads (in and out), as the threads where “drilled-out” it means the threads were female, the FIA did not say that the drilling of the threads effected the flow, it said that the FFM was modified which should not have been, they also said that 95% of FFM problems were on Renault engine cars. Giveway, keep dreaming,

107SS2009

April 11, 2014 12:31 PM

F1 » Red Bull appeal success ‘would be bad for the sport’


Why is the term “fool” regarded as arrogant when the rules says that the fuel flow measurements are those only according to the FIA homologated FFM? It should be remembered that anybody running on track did that by agreeing to those rules/regulations, what RBR did was tantamount to moving the goal posts while the game was in progress, And to the attention of the one full of it, remember that arguing with the ref as they say in rugby, 10meters back or sin bin. Mix2000, tempering with the FFM was not in the interest of the media or those “fools” that’s why RBR never disclosed it to the media or to the “fools”. Now last I heard is the F1A might turn their attention to the fuel used by STR because while they are sponsored and registering their fuel as being that made by CESPSA they have been found out to be using TOTAL as RBR use, in sort it looks like RBR can only move forward like a snake.

107SS2009

April 11, 2014 4:21 PM

F1 » Red Bull appeal success ‘would be bad for the sport’


mix2000:Changing the density of the housing of any ultrasonic equipment will alter readings. If you look at the FFM changing the density of the housing is not possible and assuming the threads drilled-out/opened-out were on the in and out of the flow points will not change the density of the housing, this FFM have a capacity or better say can flow a lot more than the 100kg/h as permitted by the regulations.

107SS2009

April 11, 2014 1:26 PM

F1 » Red Bull appeal success ‘would be bad for the sport’


I have read a report saying that the FIA found out that FFM’s used on Renault engine cars has been modified by (the exact words) the threads having been drilled-out and that 95% of FFM’S problems were on Renault engine cars, the FIA said that from Spain onwards no cars will be allowed on the grid with the FFM modified in any way other than that as supplied by Gill and calibrated by Galibra.

107SS2009

April 11, 2014 3:57 PM

F1 » Red Bull appeal success ‘would be bad for the sport’


richard: sunny. but the fia only brought in the rule/equirement that the units could not be modified AFTER the event. before that, there was no such ruling.
Richard, most probably you are right on that and assuming you are it still transpired that the FFM’S were only modified by Renault engine cars. What I am sure of is that there was mounting instructions issued by both the FIA and the FFM makers, as per the FIA, the FFM had to be fitted inside the fuel tank on the low pressure line to the engine, this position is between the main fuel supply pump inside the tank (electric) to the high pressure (500 bar) mechanical (piston type) pump on the engine (Renault have two such pumps which can be seen one on each intake camshaft).


Page 5 of 887
« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  »

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2014 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.