virgin need a new fuel tank

[CNR]

http://in.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idINIndia-47235020100326



MELBOURNE (Reuters) - New Formula One team Virgin Racing have been given permission to change their car's undersized fuel tank.
A spokeswoman for the International Automobile Federation (FIA) confirmed the specification change had been given the green light, on the basis that the car could run out of petrol before the end of races.

so the car will not be a virgin any more ?

[ratonmacias]

http://in.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idINIndia-47235020100326



so the car will not be a virgin any more ?

could this mean the cosworth drinks more gas than charlie sheen?

[F1boat]

Pathetic, IMO. This is a fundamental design flaw, so I guess that so far the CFD is a failure.

[Hawkmoon]

I wouldn't have thought "running out of fuel" to be a reliability problem. Nothing on the car is broken, Virgin just got it wrong.

This just highlights the absurdity of homologating an F1 car. It's not sportscar racing for god's sake.

[truefan72]

Pathetic, IMO. This is a fundamental design flaw, so I guess that so far the CFD is a failure.

yep.

I guess the computer told them the tank was big enough and they went with that :down:

Its a schoolboy mistake in terms of F1.

[truefan72]

This just highlights the absurdity of homologating an F1 car. It's not sportscar racing for god's sake.

I agree. That along with an engine freeze makes no sense in 2010

We have 4 engine suppliers so let them develop to their hearts content. Teams should also be able to develop their chassis as much as they want throughout the season as long as it stays withing the regs.

Its kind of absurd to think that teams should have the perfect car setup before the start of the first race and then not be allowed to make fundamental changes to it along the year.

[christophulus]

Surely the chassis freeze was brought in to help the smaller teams, so they could afford to compete on a limited budget? So if they're now changing it, for whatever reason, the whole idea seems a bit irrelevant..

[ArrowsFA1]

Pathetic, IMO. This is a fundamental design flaw, so I guess that so far the CFD is a failure.
I don't get this wish to see CFD as a failure. There was a time when the idea of putting the engine behind the driver was mocked, and yet...

Designing a car entirely with CFD is new. IMHO Virgin should be applauded for trying, and not wasting time and money with a wind-tunnel. After all we've seen how much those cost to build, run and use.

Yes, it is a fairly basic error to get this wrong but as Nick Wirth has said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82374) "At the time the design of the tank was locked down in June 2009, its capacity was determined by a number of factors, some of which have since changed, and the tank capacity now needs to be increased accordingly." Is that a CFD issue or a Cosworth issue?

[turismo6]

I really don't understand how the CFD could make a fuel tank too small, I understood that the CFD would be used for aero work. Unless it failed when working out the amount of drag produced by the virgin car hence making the engine work harder than the rest of Cosworth powered cars, but even that feels like stretch... be nice to know the size of the fuel tanks from the other three Cosworth cars.

[Mark]

Making teams stick with the same chassis and engine designs is a recepie for a boring season. If one team is ahead and the others cannot develop.

[Sonic]

The Lotus looks conservative because MG said he couldn't be sure about engine stats, cooling, fuel consumption etc. It looks that Virgin just "took a punt" and guessed wrong.

[SGWilko]

The Lotus looks conservative because MG said he couldn't be sure about engine stats, cooling, fuel consumption etc. It looks that Virgin just "took a punt" and guessed wrong.

I don't think they 'guess' in F1 any more. See USF1....

[AndyL]

I really don't understand how the CFD could make a fuel tank too small, I understood that the CFD would be used for aero work. Unless it failed when working out the amount of drag produced by the virgin car hence making the engine work harder than the rest of Cosworth powered cars, but even that feels like stretch... be nice to know the size of the fuel tanks from the other three Cosworth cars.

Agreed... conversely it's pretty hard to see how wind tunnel work could possibly have prevented this problem, so CFD surely can't be blamed.

[shazbot]

CFD - Computational Fluid Dynamics. Nowt to do with designing a fuel tank too small. On the other hand CFD can be used to simulate fuel delivery into a tank - a science in itself. Believe me it can be screwed up!

[maximilian]

So does this essentially mean that until Virgin bring their bigger tank car, which apparently won't be ready for several races, we can basically assume they will NOT finish any of the races until then, even if nothing else breaks... just because they are pre-programmed to run out of fuel? :confused:

[turismo6]

So does this essentially mean that until Virgin bring their bigger tank car, which apparently won't be ready for several races, we can basically assume they will NOT finish any of the races until then, even if nothing else breaks... just because they are pre-programmed to run out of fuel? :confused:

They could lower the revs in final laps, but I don't know how off the mark there tank size is and how much fuel you can save, I think they will have their fingers crossed for a safety car in aus... hopefully there not the team bringing it out!

[keysersoze]

Well, since they ain't gonna finish they may as well try to be spectacular. I say a quarter-fill and soft tires--try like heck to make passes!

[V12]

Oops! Figured that would be a fundamental characteristic of a car, but oh well, they're new, they'll learn. I believe Rial had a similar problem in 1988 when de Cesaris would often grind to a halt near the end of a few races?

And yes I agree, chassis homologation takes the p*ss, just as much as the engine freeze in fact, whatever happened to F1 being a development race? :(

[Dave B]

It's wrong to blame CFD, any method of car design is only as good as the parameters it is given by the humans operating it.

Either the engine wasn't as efficient as Virgin thought, or the car is more draggy, or someone cocked up.

It'll be ironic if they actually have the reliability to complete a race in Australia or Malaysia - will they opt to run lean (and dead slow?) or to retire with an empty tank?

[Sonic]

It's wrong to blame CFD, any method of car design is only as good as the parameters it is given by the humans operating it.

Either the engine wasn't as efficient as Virgin thought, or the car is more draggy, or someone cocked up.

It'll be ironic if they actually have the reliability to complete a race in Australia or Malaysia - will they opt to run lean (and dead slow?) or to retire with an empty tank?

Or just stop and tank up. They are allowed to fuel up in the garage. It'll loose em two laps but slightly less frustrating that rolling to a halt Jean Alesi style.

[MrJan]

This is gold, not exactly a great advertisment for a transatlantic airline though :D

Mistakes happen, fair dos. We all know that these new teams did well to have anything on the grid at Bahrain and they will all have problems. I say get off their back and let them get on with it, don't see the point in complaining about the lack of F1 teams and then bitching about every new team who gives it a go.

[fandango]

"It has become clear during pre-season testing and our debut race in Bahrain that our fuel tank capacity is marginal and if not addressed there is the possibility that fuel pick-up could become an issue in certain circumstances." Nick Wirth

A candidate for one of those Plain English Campaign awards. What did he do, get lessons from Ron Dennis?

[wedge]

"It has become clear during pre-season testing and our debut race in Bahrain that our fuel tank capacity is marginal and if not addressed there is the possibility that fuel pick-up could become an issue in certain circumstances." Nick Wirth

A candidate for one of those Plain English Campaign awards. What did he do, get lessons from Ron Dennis?

Nothing wrong with that quote.

[edv]

The new chassis rules do allow for re-homologation during the season, but only on the grounds of safety. I suppose that a dead car on track can be a safety issue. Perhaps not. But VR got permission to change nonetheless.

I guess, for the next few races, that VR will be praying for SC yellows. They usually get a SC deployment in Melbourne, no?

[AndyL]

"It has become clear during pre-season testing and our debut race in Bahrain that our fuel tank capacity is marginal and if not addressed there is the possibility that fuel pick-up could become an issue in certain circumstances." Nick Wirth

A candidate for one of those Plain English Campaign awards. What did he do, get lessons from Ron Dennis?

I've seen worse, but I agree "there is the possibility that fuel pick-up could become an issue" is a bit of a round-about way of saying we might run out of petrol :)

[MrJan]

The new chassis rules do allow for re-homologation during the season, but only on the grounds of safety. I suppose that a dead car on track can be a safety issue. Perhaps not. But VR got permission to change nonetheless.

I guess, for the next few races, that VR will be praying for SC yellows. They usually get a SC deployment in Melbourne, no?

I'm sure that if Virgin end up retiring because of a lack of fuel then they'd be delighted to have got that far.

[Langdale Forest]

It would have been an epic fail if a Virgin car ran out of fuel during a race.

[fandango]

Nothing wrong with that quote.

No, indeed, except that he should have said probability rather than possibility :)

[ioan]

Designing a car entirely with CFD is new.

Are you kidding me or you just don't know what CFD is about?
Once and for all you can not design a car only using CFD. CFD is only used for simulating the airflow over the car, that's it.
Much more is needed to produce a car.

[jens]

:rotflmao: Fun to see someone offering us such entertainment!

Well, maybe they thought their car was going to be so unreliable that they won't finish the races anyway? :D But actually the situation is not the end of the world - they are going to be lapped in GP's so many times that they don't need cover all those 305 race km's and will be forced to finish earlier anyway. :p :

[emporer_k]

:rotflmao: Id have loved to be a fly on the wall when they realised.

[Robinho]

how about - they always knew it would be tight, but realised they'd be lucky to make the finish of the 1st few races anyway. instead using them as extended tests this then allows them to put into practice what they learn whilst developing a mkII chassis which they would not be able to build if they didn't have a "reliability" problem

[pettersolberg29]

jens actually has a good point - if Virgin are lapped about 3 or 4 times in Melbourne then maybe they would be able to finish?

For the people who know more than me - when was the last time a driver ran out of fuel because they didn't judge it properly? Last year I know that Heidfeld retired because he ran out of fuel due to a pump failure, but has a team ever just misjudged the amount needed?

[MrJan]

jens actually has a good point - if Virgin are lapped about 3 or 4 times in Melbourne then maybe they would be able to finish?

For the people who know more than me - when was the last time a driver ran out of fuel because they didn't judge it properly? Last year I know that heidfeld retired because he ran out of fuel due to a pump failure, but has a team ever just misjudged the amount needed?

Massa came pretty close didn't he? Were it not for the computer gubbins then he wouldn't have made it.

[ioan]

Massa came pretty close didn't he? Were it not for the computer gubbins then he wouldn't have made it.

If you are referring to last season's Spanish GP than the reality was that the car had more than enough fuel in the tank but the device in the tank was broken and thus showing less fuel was on board.
And the clowns at Ferrari never thought about double checking by simply weighing the refueling equipment before and after the pit stop.

[wedge]

No, indeed, except that he should have said probability rather than possibility :)

No.

He was referring that with the original fuel tank some race circuits will further compromise fuel consumption. Albert Park incorporates heavy braking and acceleration which burdens fuel consumption and Wirth has been entirely correct with his use of the English language.

[Somebody]

Nothing wrong with that quote.
Saying "fuel pick-up might become an issue" is not the same thing as "there might be no fuel to pick up". The former says there IS fuel, it just isn't usable (shades of BAR 2005). The latter says there isn't any fuel full-stop.

Since the problem appears to be the latter rather than the former, then there IS something seriously circumlocutious about the quote...

[e2mtt]

Pathetic that this is an issue. So now the teams have to ask F1's permission to change minor details on their car? Are you no longer allowed to improve your car during the season?

[Somebody]

Pathetic that this is an issue. So now the teams have to ask F1's permission to change minor details on their car?

It isn't a minor detail - they need, basically, a B-spec car (a whole new chassis, with a longer wheelbase and all the new bodywork that implies) in order to fit the new fuel tank in.

To put that in context, Brawn only manufactured three physical chassis for the whole year last year. B-spec cars are rare, and unheard of amongst bottom-feeders like Virgin.

[wedge]

Saying "fuel pick-up might become an issue" is not the same thing as "there might be no fuel to pick up". The former says there IS fuel, it just isn't usable (shades of BAR 2005). The latter says there isn't any fuel full-stop.

Since the problem appears to be the latter rather than the former, then there IS something seriously circumlocutious about the quote...

You missed out: "in some certain circumstances"

[Tomski]

Consdering how much bench testing is done on the engines, accurate consumption figures must be avaialbe to the team. The length of the races is known how could you possibly manage to get this so wrong that you need a "B" spec car? Nick wirth in my opinion has lost all of his professional reputation over this cock-up!!

[Dave B]

Consdering how much bench testing is done on the engines, accurate consumption figures must be avaialbe to the team.
To an extent. But if the finished car is more "draggy" than you expected, ie needs more energy to push it through the air, then bench testing means nothing. It's still a pretty fundamental cockup, mind.

[ioan]

To an extent. But if the finished car is more "draggy" than you expected, ie needs more energy to push it through the air, then bench testing means nothing. It's still a pretty fundamental cockup, mind.

They could still change the engine mapping in order to have a lower consumption and finish the races, that is if they don't brake down before the end.

Nevertheless these stupid rules about not being allowed to change the chassis are making F1 look like a joke.

[Malbec]

Nick wirth in my opinion has lost all of his professional reputation over this cock-up!!

Apparently the problem was with the supplier who made an error in the design of the tank. Its not about fuel consumption and having enough fuel, its about having a design that could ensure that whatever g-forces the car was going through the tank could still supply fuel at nearly empty levels.

Doesn't sound like it was a design error by the team to me. If a supplier claims their goods are up to spec then you simply have to believe them until they are delivered.

I'm a bit surprised by the number of people who think CFD is used to design the entire car, as the name implies its only used for aerodynamics. The fuel tank and chassis would still have been designed on computer but even if Virgin were to have made a schoolboy error (which they didn't) it would not be a reflection of how good CFD is. The only thing that will show whether CFD on its own works is performance on track.....

[ioan]

I thought they all use the same supplier for the fuel tanks.

[Malbec]

I thought they all use the same supplier for the fuel tanks.

I believe there are two or three main suppliers, but even so that does not stop a supplier from making an error on only one of its fuel tanks designed to fit into the shape and space Virgin asked for.

[Tomski]

Apparently the problem was with the supplier who made an error in the design of the tank. Its not about fuel consumption and having enough fuel, its about having a design that could ensure that whatever g-forces the car was going through the tank could still supply fuel at nearly empty levels.

Doesn't sound like it was a design error by the team to me. If a supplier claims their goods are up to spec then you simply have to believe them until they are delivered.

.....

How can an external supplier have got the design so wrong? I was under the impression that modern F1 cars were a fully intergrated "system" not merely a collection of parts, assembled to create the final car?

Whoevers at fault here, what away to have your reputation ruined.

[wedge]

How can an external supplier have got the design so wrong? I was under the impression that modern F1 cars were a fully intergrated "system" not merely a collection of parts, assembled to create the final car?

You want the parts bespoke as possible but that is never the case entirely and compromises are inevitable.

[Robinho]

the supplier thing contradicts what Nick Wirth said on the telly earlier.

he said they had to have their chassis calcs complete in June, and that of the 3 things they based the fuel tank size on, 2 had changed, and as it was always a bit marginal, so when they got on track it became apparent they didn't get it quite right.

the 3 things he said were the consumption figures from Cosworth (which he says didn't change), the specification of the fuel (they were expecting it to be a denser fuel, which got changed at the Brazilian GP, and something in the technical regs that also got changed at the end of last year (sorry i can't remember what, but it'll be on the iplayer in the interview in the pitlane before qually started. he mentioned something about not being able to top up on the grid too. all those things combined meant there already slightly marginal calcs were wrong.

[Robinho]

27 mins into the qually programme, NIck Wirth interview with Jake Humphrey, EJ and Coulthard - in June when they locked down the monocoque they were told they were getting a "high density fuel", which changed in October to what they are using now. tech changes included the requirement to do an impact test with a fuel tank of fuel which meant they had to slightly change the construction of the monocoque (to pass i assume). apparenlty that requirement was also introduced in Oct at Brazil.

That coupled with not being able to top up on the grid anymore, he said, meant that they were "too marginal to be comfortable" and "we pushed the boundaries and got it slightly wrong" although interestingly added that perhaps they weren't the only ones.

i think any reference to the supplier of the tanks is speculation thats very wide of the mark

[ioan]

...he mentioned something about not being able to top up on the grid too.

I never saw the teams do that in 20 years of watching F1, so maybe he should have known it too.
But what stops them starting the race from the pit lane? This would mean 2 laps less to run.

[christophulus]

Virgin start from the pit lane:


The requirement to start from the pitlane does at least mean Glock and di Grassi will be able to start the race with their fuel tanks filled to the brim rather than using up some of their marginal capacity by driving around to the grid.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82472

[jens]

Virgin start from the pit lane:



http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82472

Hah! Does that mean that Virgin is going to start from the pitlane in the next races too to save fuel? :D

[Dave B]

Hah! Does that mean that Virgin is going to start from the pitlane in the next races too to save fuel? :D
Almost certainly, although if Malaysia has heavy rain from the start they may gamble that the decreased speed will come to their rescue.

[Somebody]

If Malaysia has heavy rain from the start, the winner'll be getting half points again.

[Dave B]

If Malaysia has heavy rain from the start, the winner'll be getting half points again.
Don't! I'm only just getting used to the new points system as it is, don't go throwing half-points into the equation :s

[Malbec]

the supplier thing contradicts what Nick Wirth said on the telly earlier.

he said they had to have their chassis calcs complete in June, and that of the 3 things they based the fuel tank size on, 2 had changed, and as it was always a bit marginal, so when they got on track it became apparent they didn't get it quite right.

the 3 things he said were the consumption figures from Cosworth (which he says didn't change), the specification of the fuel (they were expecting it to be a denser fuel, which got changed at the Brazilian GP, and something in the technical regs that also got changed at the end of last year (sorry i can't remember what, but it'll be on the iplayer in the interview in the pitlane before qually started. he mentioned something about not being able to top up on the grid too. all those things combined meant there already slightly marginal calcs were wrong.

So of the three factors Wirth mentions none were specific to Virgin. All Cosworth teams got the same figures from their engine supplier. Every single team got the same info about which fuel would be legal in 2010 and about topping up on the grid, yet only one of them made this mistake?

At the same time Richard Branson is happily claiming that the cost of altering the chassis will not be met by his team but by the supplier of the fuel tank as it was they who made the mistake, not Virgin. If the team had made the mistake then why are the fuel supplier the one who are having to pay?

[ioan]

At the same time Richard Branson is happily claiming that the cost of altering the chassis will not be met by his team but by the supplier of the fuel tank as it was they who made the mistake, not Virgin. If the team had made the mistake then why are the fuel supplier the one who are having to pay?

I do not believe Branson, not one minute.
The chassis was not built around the fuel tanks specifications but the other way around, or at least it should have been.

[CNR]

from what they were saying on tv the fuel tank supplier is the same that supply to other teams

[Sleeper]

Hah! Does that mean that Virgin is going to start from the pitlane in the next races too to save fuel? :D
Depends if the next few tracks are ones they are worried about or not, so far Wirth has said its only on the higher consumption tracks like Melbourne that its a problem.

I'm interested to see if his statement that other teams are marginal as well comes true.

[Easy Drifter]

Just because one supplier is utilized by several teams it does not mean the tanks are the same shape and size. The teams will give the specs they want and the supplier should build to those specs. The rate of fuel usage will be different for the different engines.
The tanks will have a collection tank within the main tank from where the fuel will go to supply the engine. This, in theory, avoids the problem of surge on braking, accelaeration and cornering. The location, size and design of this collection tank is critical. Wether that is up to the car manufacturer or the tank manufacturer I am not sure. There should be close collabaration between the two no matter what.
It has happened before where a car, for whatever reason, cannot pick up the last gallon or two. It has also happened when there is a long sweeping turn.
The location of the pick up or pick ups can be critical. If several are used there are valves to shut off, automatically, any pick up starting to suck air.
It may be that the Virgin tank is actually large enough but there is a pick up problem.
Installing the bladder and other internals in a fuel tank is a hated job by all mechanics as you work through the smallest access hole the engineers can get away with! I have installed bladders!!!!!! Wrinkles are a definte no no.

[Somebody]

If the physical tank was large enough and it was just the interior gubbins that needed to be reconfigured, why would they need a new chassis? Surely it MUST be a capacity rather than configuration problem at the core.

[Easy Drifter]

You are most likely correct.
I just did a poor job of describing some of the problems associated with fuel tank design and installation as it applies to Virgin.
Any increase in the outside dimensions of the rigid part of the tank will result in at the very least a modified tub and probably at least the design of the area of the tank (between the driver and engine) modified.
Taller might be the easiest mod but that increases the weight carried up high which you do not want, although as the fuel load goes down so does that problem. Wider probably would influence the aero the most but longer the whole aspect of suspension design. Not an easy one.
The other question is just how much more fuel capacity do they need.

[wedge]

The other question is just how much more fuel capacity do they need.

Apparently 13 litres.

[SGWilko]

Also is it right that starting from the pitlane means they can forfeit 2 laps? I did read that somewhere but unsure how credible the source is... :)

Well, you've got one lap out the pits to the grid, then the formation lap. Also, starting from the pits they can start with a tank full of juice.

[Garry Walker]

This speaks for the quality of the new teams.

[Easy Drifter]

So 24 to 30 lbs of fuel. Don't want to put that up high! Longer and/or wider tub needed.

[ioan]

Thats a huge miscalculation isn't it?

Yep, over 5%.

[Big Ben]

This speaks for the quality of the new teams.

Sometimes you have to put up with some lack of quality just to appreciate what you have. It´s what I´m doing right now.

[K-Pu]

Always bear in mind that no team can enter F1 without being able to win both WDC and WCC in their first year... Brawn was the only team that should have entered F1 since... Well, the only team. The other ones are minor entities who reamin there because of some weird old traditions (see Ferrari), money (see Force India) or because we have to fill the grid with something although that waters down the quality of the field.

Of course last newcomers are the worst. They always are and they´ll always be. We are heading for a near infinite state of lack of quality.

[e2mtt]

This speaks for the quality of the new teams.

So you figure we shouldn't let teams compete unless they're already the best? Everybody's got to start somewhere.

Let's face it, once upon a time you were a complete forum novice, with only about 5 posts. Newb.

[Alfa Fan]

In terms of posting quality he is also one of the worst. Maybe we should cull the worst posters?

[Big Ben]

So you figure we shouldn't let teams compete unless they're already the best? Everybody's got to start somewhere.

Let's face it, once upon a time you were a complete forum novice, with only about 5 posts. Newb.

I don't like your comparison. It kind of proves his point. In your example the subject shows lack of quality even after almost 3000 useless posts. Let's hope the new teams will do better than that.

[Somebody]

Interview with Nick Wirth: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82559

Apparently:
a) His company are paying to fix the situation, not the fuel tank supplier.
b) They have problems with both overall capacity *AND* picking up what fuel there is in the tank.
c) They can't finish a race even on the leanest burn mode
d) They're still blaming everyone else for their troubles, despite no-one else managing to fark up this badly - including Hispania and Lotus.

[V12]

Always bear in mind that no team can enter F1 without being able to win both WDC and WCC in their first year...

So according to this logic - the only teams that should be in F1 are Alfa Romeo, Mercedes (of 1954 vintage) and Brawn? Maybe Ferrari and some incarnation of Wolf if we're being generous?

Besides, Brawn were in no way a new team, nor were Force India or Red Bull, they were incarnations of already established teams that had won races in their previous guises (if we stretch Brawn back to Tyrrell, even if BAR only really bought their entry).

Williams were rubbish when Frank started his F1 adventure, and while mid-pack now they have a heap of titles to their name. The first F1 McLaren (1966) wasn't up to much either.

If you feel those teams not winning are expendable and should be gotten rid of, you'll end up with 2 cars.

I still have nothing but respect for the three newcomers, regardless of how well they're doing initially they have added a much-needed bit of colour and variety to F1 that was sorely lacking for the past 15 years or so.

And give them a few years, some may fail and drop out, some may stay stagnated at the back, and some may progress into seriously competitive outfits, but either way they deserve the chance to prove themselves in the long run.

On topic - fair play to Wirth for acknowledging and taking full responsibility for the cock-up, and underwriting the rectification of said cock-up :up:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82558

[gloomyDAY]

Fuel pickup?

I am not sure I understand this problem.

Why are they having trouble extrapolating (Ron speak) all of the fuel?

[Garry Walker]

I don't like your comparison. It kind of proves his point. In your example the subject shows lack of quality even after almost 3000 useless posts. Let's hope the new teams will do better than that.

:laugh: I must have touched a nerve

[ioan]

Let's face it, once upon a time you were a complete forum novice, with only about 5 posts. Newb.

Still he could write better than Virgin can calculate the needed volume for a fuel tank. :D

[ioan]

:laugh: I must have touched a nerve

Start posting nicely about Alonso and he'll become your friend. ;)

[Big Ben]

Start posting nicely about Alonso and he'll become your friend. ;)

Yes, that´s right. That´s what I´m doing here, looking for imaginary friends on the internet.

[Big Ben]

:laugh: I must have touched a nerve

I just love making fun of the stupid things you say :laugh:

[ioan]

Yes, that´s right. That´s what I´m doing here, looking for imaginary friends on the internet.

Lighten up, it was a joke, I even used a smiley specially for you. :)

[ioan]

At the same time Richard Branson is happily claiming that the cost of altering the chassis will not be met by his team but by the supplier of the fuel tank as it was they who made the mistake, not Virgin. If the team had made the mistake then why are the fuel supplier the one who are having to pay?

As I previously said, don't believe Branson because it's Wirth who pays for the new chassis not the fuel tank supplier!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82558

[Easy Drifter]

Interesting point is that Virgin will be producing a new tub which will give them a chance for improvements beyond the fuel tank from things learned in testing and the first races.
As I pointed out in an earlier post it is not all that uncommon for a team to encounter problems getting all the fuel in the tank. Pick up points and design and location of the small internal collection tank are both tricky and critical.

[CNR]

why new teams could not put one car together and test even if it was a mock up new parts on an old car

[wedge]

Excuses:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8596514.stm

Possible explanations ranged from allegations that the tank wall is too thick, or that the fuel is of a lower density than they were expecting, or that they just miscalculated how much fuel would be able to fit in after fuel pumps and lines were in the tank.

[ioan]

A bunch of lunatics these Virgin guys (pun intended) but the FIA beats them to the title by allowing them to get an upgrade when all those who've got it right will not have this advantage.

[jens]

Garry Walker, do you think that even Lotus is a useless new team and shouldn't be racing in F1?

[Mia 01]

Virgin needs far moore than a new fuel tank this year, but when the car is runing they are on pace.

Can they score a poit this year?