More Bull

So, although I expected another victory, Sebastian Vettel finished second for Red Bull at Bahrain; unlike Button, he was unable to pass Hamilton's slower McLaren. He finished seven seconds behind the winner - whilst Trulli with the soft tyres on his Toyota was pushing him hard in the last stages of the race.

Ross Brawn says that his cars have had no updates since the start of the season, and Jenson Button says that the Red Bulls are already faster.

Adrian Newey at Red Bull will not have been idle since his absence from the trackside was ordered a couple of weeks ago.

I am still not inclined to bet against Red Bull this year, despite McLaren's improving form and the presence of Luca di Montezemolo at Bahrain which may well have stimulated the Ferrari team somewhat. It must be acknowledged that Kimi Raikkonen had a good race, whilst his teammate was, like Red Bull's Mark Webber, rather unlucky.

A bientôt

Shanghai

With Red Bull first and second, what more can I say?

A bientôt

Diffusion

My regular readers will know that I like to follow F1, despite the fact that the general public and the media seem to think that it is "Driver Racing" rather than Motor Racing. Despite my recent admiring post here concerning Juan Manuel Fangio, it is or perhaps was, the technical battle that fascinated me, which apart from my generally nostalgic nature, makes study of the 1950s and '60s Grand Prix battles so interesting. The days when, within broad limits, manufacturers would do their best by any means to beat their rivals.

In those days there would be excitement because Team A had an special new engine, Team B had a monocoque chassis, Team C had a new fancy fuel etc.

Nowadays there is little room for manoeuvre, although we have recently had an excellent, though very difficult-to-understand example in the matter of the diffusers, in particular those fitted to Brawn (née Honda), Toyota and Williams cars. As you may have read, these were said by other teams to be outside the regulations and a protest was raised which was thrown out yesterday by the FIA. Here from the BBC F1 website is a picture of the diffuser fitted to the Williams. As I understand it, the top is supposed to be a straight line; this obviously isn't but is apparently within the regulations. I say good luck to them; they are much cleverer than I!

In the BBC article, there are various links on this subject. which those absorbed in this rather esoteric topic may pursue at their leisure.

I cannot reproduce any illustrations from the Official F1 Website, hardly surprising I suppose, given that it's generous Bernie Ecclestone in charge, so you'll have to look up the following couple of items yourselves.

First the McLaren diffuser

And then the one fitted to the Brawn GP car

I have to admit that I would have to study this for months before I could understand the subject.

It is always important to remember that FI designers are at the top of their profession, highly paid and highly esteemed; McLaren for example would have devoted a great deal of time and attention to the design - it would not have been signed-off lightly. Some of the protesting teams have claimed that the so-called "double-decker diffuser" is worth up to half a second a lap - 24 hours in F1 terms!

But there's the rub: amongst the "non-double-decker teams" one has been consistently quick and in some cases quicker, than the "double-deckers". That team is Red Bull-Renault whose car was designed by the famous Adrian Newey. This fact makes some of the whinging from certain other teams seem a little silly - Ferrari in particular springs to mind - Ferrari, whose car and apparently organisation this year are shall we say, less than superb.

Following the overturning of the protest of course, all teams except Brawn, Toyota and Williams will be developing their own "double-deckers". Anyone care to bet against Red Bull this season?

UPDATE

Here, quoted from Autosport.com, is Adam Parr, CEO at Williams, talking about the diffuser issue:

"Part of the case presented against us related to what we call as the use of multiple vertical transitions. Essentially, you have to have a reference plane, which is like the plank, and 50mm above that you have the step planes. One of the key issues in the case was: when do you have to have a transition between those two?

"Essentially you have to have a vertical transition between the two when the step plane is visible directly above the periphery of the reference plane. Where you don't, it is explicit that you don't have to have one. So one of the key issues in the case was that if you don't have to have one at certain points then by definition you can have many transitions.

No doubt this has helped enormously to clarify the matter eh readers?

UPDATE II

Thanks to "Auntie Beeb" former Technical Director Mike Gascoyne helps to lift some of the fog...

UPDATE III

Saturday, Shanghai: Sebastian Vettel achieves Red Bull's first-ever pole position. Here are Jenson Button's (Brawn GP) comments from Autosport.com:

"It's not quite as good as what I expected," Button told the BBC. "The Red Bulls were quick yesterday, we were watching them in the high speed corners and they were very, very fast.

"So if you at Q2 it looked like they had two or three tenths on us, so yeah they are competitive. And it's not us driving around slowly or having a lot of fuel in the car because it's Q2 and you run with low fuel so they are going to be tough to beat.

"We knew they were competitive but we didn't think quite that competitive."

A bientôt

Land of the Free?

How many of you have been caught by a speed-trap radar? Almost everybody hates these things, and my principle objection is that ignoring many centuries of legal precedent, these contrivances dispense arbitrary "justice" with no consideration given to conditions, circumstances or mitigation. I recall that my last English ticket was earned owing to an outrageous breach of the law. I was driving on a deserted road one evening, that real tearaway's car, a SII Fulvia Berline and travelling at the highly irresponsible speed of 38 mph. This cost me sixty quid. Ridiculous.

Here in France it is illegal to have any device that detects police radars/lasers. Worse, whilst there are as yet fewer fixed cameras than in the UK, one can often see the Gendarmes with their blasted jumelles (binoculars) trying to earn a few euros for the impoverished republic. They also have unmarked cars with radars or lasers installed.

As I understand it, the law about detectors is a bit vague in Britain (although this might have changed recently) whilst I suppose that jammers are strictly "off the menu.".

Things are different in the USA; here is an article from Jalopnik via Gizmodo all about a RENNtech-developed Mercedes-Benz. Apart from the 580HP and 465lb/ft of torque and appropriate suspension mods etc., the ultimate accessory is a radar/laser detector and jammer. This is built-in - to the rear-view mirror! Wonderful stuff. One of the comments on the article points out that such accessories are illegal in Virginia, but then that still leaves 49 other states to "explore!"

A bientôt

The Old Man

The "Old Man" was Juan Manuel Fangio's nickname in the 1950s when he achieved his five world championships. He was 45 in 1957 when he won the last one, and anyone who has read about his stunning drive that year at the Nürburgring will recognise his greatness.

Anyway, he is my favourite post-war driver (though I have a big place in my heart for Mike Hawthorn) in respect of his staggering talent and ability.

Here I have a couple of videos for you. Pertinently the first one happily in colour, shows Fangio at Monaco driving the Lancia D50 - OK, "Lancia-Ferrari"... The noise! EDIT: I have just this minute discovered this thread on the Atlas Nostalgia Forum. It appears that this film was made in 1970 and Fangio (at 58 years old) is driving a D50 - doesn't explain though why there is a Ferrari badge on the front of it, instead of the "shield and flag"

And here at the Modena Autodrome in a 250F - great car control and more wonderful noise. As a (English) Lancia Club friend observed to me, once the engines went above about 10,000 it became difficult to relate to the noise. I agree.

For all you youngsters, I should point out that in 1957, a 250F Maserati, running on the special fuels permitted (for the last time that year) produced from its 2.5 litre engine, around 295-300 BHP. Doesn't sound much today does it? But these cars weighed about half a ton and were very quick. Maximum speed was probably around 170 mph, and with drum brakes and those skinny cross-ply tyres, required a great deal of skilled input from the drivers. And a Grand Prix in those days was 300 miles...

Until the next time.

Still Alive

Just in case you were wondering!

I was browsing the excellent fora on Atlas today; these really are excellent for those interested in Motorsport. Apart from the "Racing Comments" forum which is concerned with current events in F1, there is the superb Nostalgia Forum and also the Technical Forum. The contributors to this are very well informed - at least most of them - and some of the contributors are obviously in the highest echelons of the Motor Industry - or perhaps Motorsport industry. The expertise and breadth of knowledge to be found there is quite simply breathtaking.

And it was a thread there that prompted this post.

Those of you who are "hands-on" Fulvia owners who cannot resist taking things apart may have been distressed to notice the sad state of your rocker shafts... Yes, Lancia in its wisdom (or perhaps they let the cost accountants out for a breath of air) chose to run the forged steel rockers directly on the hardened steel rocker shafts. If you have removed the valve gear you will probably have noticed the depressing wear in certain places. I should add, that had Lancia bitten the cost bullet and lined the rockers with bronze bushes which would be the normal engineering procedure (oil retention) amazingly the shafts would have worn probably just as much. In the 1930s, Lancia produced the wonderful Aprilia, a car years ahead of its time - like so many Lancias. The engine, a narrow-angle V4 of course, featured duralumin connecting-rods. These had no bearings, the dural ran directly onto the steel, and it was the crank that wore - not the rods!

Well here's a thread from the Atlas Technical Forum that is concerned with the subtleties of rocker shaft design and manufacture. Should appeal to the engineers and mathematicians amongst you!

Meanwhile there is a chance that I shall finally be in a position to offer you proper Fulvia (mechanical) attention if you live in the Geneva area or perhaps if you are on a pilgrimage to Turin! I may well be operaitng at a garage in Evian les Bains directly on the shore of Lake Geneva. If my expertise fails to attract you, then surely the view will!


Watch this space.

A bientôt