Thursday, March 31, 2011
Seeing as this is effectively their hometown auto show, Hyundai was out in full force at the Seoul Motor Show with a host of new offerings. One concept that the Korean automaker brought was the Blue2 Sedan Concept, a car that the Korean automaker is pegging as the next generation FCEV sedan.
The car bears the codename HND-6 and is being touted as Hyundai?s very first Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle that?s powered by hydrogen and is capable of delivering 90kW ? around 120 horsepower ? and estimated fuel economy figures reaching an impressive 82 miles per gallon.
Aesthetically speaking, the Blue2 Sedan Concept has an exterior whose design language is being described as ?Intersected Flow? with other external features complementing the contoured form of the car, including the LCD screen panels on both the front and back, side cameras in place of the standard side mirrors, a roof camera, and automatic opening doors.
Inside, the Blue2 Concept features an asymmetrical dashboard, wider seats to make room for a spacious interior cabin, and a couple of out-of-this-world features, including what the company is describing as a Transparent Organic Light Emitting Diode (TOLED) monitor that has been officially christened the Gorilla Glass. This monitor appears more accurate and vivid compared to standard LED screens. Another unique feature is the Motion Sensor Moustick, a haptic wheel and motion sensor that respond to the driver?s touch and hand movements, giving drivers a new experience.
HI , yup, I need advice . The cars in question are REVELL and AMT. I was in my local HOBBY LOBBY today and saw the CHEVY with the tilt trailer by I think AMT.What year is it and is it hard to convert to a ragtop?? The otherCHEVY I believe was a 66 IMPALA by AMT .are either one worth spending $21.00 dollars on ? Like I said ,in this part of TEXAS prices seem to keep going up . How about the 1970 1/2 CAMARO. That,s NOT the BALDWIN MOTION car is it ? The thing is I want to keep working on my RHAPSODY in BLUE diorama . I,ve been at it for nine years now and am close to the end I only need five CHEVIES . All the cars are going to be in various shades of BLUE and some will be lightly customized (shaved and decked and lowered ) and the other cars except a few will be dead stone stock . The few not stock will be mild street machines. I don,t like and have never liked hood scoops that obstruct vision and I definitely don,t like blowers sticking through the hood . So the display will be kind of laid back and probably cover a whole table. I am using mirrored plexi and various shades of blue plexi in dofferent levels to build this thing.Some of the stock cars will have the old reprinted ads from way back then on the backdrop , courtesy of REMINISCE magazine ! I will let you see it in the GALLERY before I take it to the show . Thats why I need five more CHEVIES . Come to think of it I will have to trade into a 59 CHEVY H.T. COUPE (1959) I will be glad to hear from anyone on those trades at email@example.com . thank you for your help . oldcarguy
Mark Webber and Sebastian Vettel will be on a level playing field for the 2011 Formula One season, the Australian driver believes.
Webber felt like he was being treated as a 'second driver' last season by Red Bull as his German team-mate appeared to be given preference when it came to car parts and race tactics.
However, Webber has insisted that he ...
Formula 1 is in a fix. Over team orders. To keep the ban as it is or bin it - that's the question.
Or is there a middle way that would see the sport's law-makers provide a clarification that would specify precisely the circumstances when a team would be allowed to apply team orders and when they wouldn't?
Over the last two days here at the Hungaroring, I've canvassed opinion among leading members of teams in the pit-lane - team principals, team managers, technical directors and managing directors - who, it has to be said, all have their own agendas and specific team interests.
The first finding to report is that nobody has a ready-made solution!
Significantly, the issue wasn't even on the agenda at Wednesday's meeting of the Formula 1 Teams' Association's Sporting Regulations Working Group. It was suggested, in the wake of the furore at last weekend's German Grand Prix that it should be discussed, but it wasn't added.
An overwhelming majority of the figures I consulted believed that Ferrari deserved further punishment.
And the majority view was that most suitable penalty, in addition to their $100,000 fine, was the loss of Ferrari's 43 points in the constructors' championship at Hockenheim.
The drivers, however, would retain theirs.
"How can you impose a really strict penalty for an offence that we all know the teams commit?" said one team executive.
Some thought a suspended race ban should also apply but, perhaps surprisingly, there was no call for another much heavier fine in line with the punishment handed out in 2002 after Ferrari's conduct at the Austrian Grand Prix.
Then, there was no rule outlawing team orders but the FIA imposed the $1m sanction because they ruled that the podium incident involving Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello had brought the sport into disrepute.
The only unanimous view I came across in all discussions is that rule needed to be clarified because team orders have always been, and will always be part of the fabric of F1.
So, if that's the case, surely it would make most sense for the sport to erase article 39.1 and allow team orders.
That would mean fans, the media and the authorities would know what to expect and there wouldn't be the outrage that surrounded last weekend's result.
"No", said one team principal. "There needs to be a deterrent. Otherwise you'll have another Austria 2002 when there was no ban on team orders yet Ferrari made the sport look stupid."
Support for that opinion came from one of the pit-lane's most experienced technical directors, who cited three examples of team orders which reflected what's acceptable and what is not.
"When (Felipe) Massa helped (Kimi) Raikkonen to victory in Brazil in 2007, and as a result the title, that was entirely understandable, entirely right," my source said.
"Massa couldn't win the title but his team-mate could. It was the last race of the season. And Ferrari explained it properly.
"Austria 2002 was blatantly wrong. It was only the sixth race of the season and Schumacher was already well ahead in the championship. He had no need for assistance.
"Then you had Hockenheim last weekend, and that's somewhere in the middle of the range. Alonso was clearly quicker and is their best bet for the championship.
"What made it so messy was the way Ferrari handled things after the race. It was a farce. They treated the public so stupidly."
But given the current ban, how else could Ferrari explain the Massa-Alonso switch, without openly admitting they had broken the rules?
As it is, another senior technical director believes the stewards got it wrong in Hockenheim.
He claims a more meaningful, damaging penalty for Ferrari would have been a 10-second time penalty for Alonso, which would have relegated him from first to third, promoting Massa to victory.
None of the people I've spoken to this week thought Ferrari got it right in Germany - and yet privately all will tell you that their biggest offence was not imposing the order on Massa but carrying it out so blatantly.
As one team official put it bluntly: "It comes down to how well we can cheat the fans, because if we do it well, under this current rule, nobody knows."
When I pressed for a form of words or a mechanism that allowed for team orders in certain circumstances, only in the final third of the season as some have suggested, nobody had a recommendation.
The same source indicated that drafting the sporting regulations could become a legal minefield with officials challenging the scope of the rule - "interfering with the race result" - in the same way that engineers challenge the technical regulations.
"Everything we do can interfere with the race result. What about the Red Bull front wing at Silverstone, for example? Only for Vettel, not for Webber."
Prompted by a leading technical director, I checked out the 1998 ruling from the World Motor Sport Council following McLaren switch between David Coulthard and Mika Hakkinen at the Australian Grand Prix that year.
The FIA verdict read as follows: "It is perfectly legitimate for a team to decide that one of its drivers is the championship contender and the other will support him.
"What is not acceptable in the world council's view is any arrangement which interferes with the race and cannot be justified by the relevant team's interest in the championship."
This ruling stood until the end of 2002 when the ban was imposed.
As discussed in Andrew Benson's blog after the race on Sunday, there's a contradiction in F1 over team orders.
It's not so much what the teams do, it's how they do it.
In that context, it's hardly surprising that Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo would criticise the sport's "hypocrisy".
While the teams continue to believe in their unwritten rule which flies in the face of the official ruling, this latest controversy surely will not be the last.
And if the World Council isn't going to meet until 10 September - the Friday of the Italian Grand Prix, of all days - it guarantees that we'll all be watching the action even more closely.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
"I don't think it was an easy race," Sebastian Vettel said after winning the Australian Grand Prix, but it certainly looked that way.
The world champion was never more than nine seconds ahead of Lewis Hamilton's chasing McLaren until the Englishman ran into trouble with a damaged floor on his car midway through the race. But the Red Bull driver always appeared to be in total control.
The German was 2.5 seconds clear after the first lap, when admittedly Hamilton had been compromised by having to hold off Vettel's team-mate Mark Webber at the start, and he pulled out another 0.8secs on lap two.
Although Hamilton pegged him after that, the suspicion must be that Vettel was already in cruise mode, even though he said after the race that he was struggling with tyres in that first stint.
It was probably not a coincidence that the margin between the two men on that second lap was pretty much exactly the same as it had been in qualifying. That's how much faster the Red Bull appeared to be in Melbourne, at least in Vettel's hands.
There was a sharp intake of breath along the pit lane in Albert Park when the sheer speed of the car was finally unleashed in final practice on Saturday morning and nothing that happened after that did anything to diminish that impression.
Following Vettel's pace in qualifying, his fastest race lap was nearly half a second quicker than Hamilton's. On that evidence, McLaren and the rest have some work to do if they are to stop Red Bull running away with the championship.
That said, it is unwise to read too much into the results of the first race of the season - particularly in Melbourne - and it remains to be seen whether Red Bull's advantage will be as big at other circuits this season.
Albert Park can be a bit like that. If a driver and team get everything just so in conditions that leave others struggling a bit - exactly what appeared to happen in Saturday's cool weather - it is possible to eke out a quite extraordinary advantage.
The mind immediately turns to 1997, when Jacques Villeneuve was on pole position in Australia by 1.8 seconds from his Williams team-mate Heinz-Harald Frentzen. Michael Schumacher's Ferrari was third on the grid that weekend, 2.1 seconds slower than Villeneuve - and yet the title battle went to the last race of the season between the Canadian and the German.
The common denominator between that Williams and this year's Red Bull is Adrian Newey, then Williams's chief designer, now Red Bull's chief technical officer and for some time F1's pre-eminent genius - and I do not use that word lightly.
Like the Williams FW17, the Red Bull RB7 is the third iteration of a car-design concept. This is what Newey is like - he does not always nail the key to unlocking a set of regulations but when he does, as he has with this generation of Red Bulls, he just keeps chipping away, refining the concept, and the others find it very difficult to catch up.
Further evidence of Newey's uncompromising approach to design emerged after the race on Sunday, when Red Bull team principal Christian Horner revealed that the team had decided not to use their Kers power-boost system after Friday.
The fact that Red Bull's drivers did not use Kers in qualifying led to tongues wagging in the F1 paddock on Saturday, when there was speculation they had a mini-Kers system that would be used only at the start.
The truth was more mundane. Red Bull have been struggling with Kers reliability all winter and the team decided it was more trouble than it was worth in Melbourne.
Red Bull's problems with Kers have been created by Newey's absolute determination to make the car as fast as possible - and to trade off performance as little as he can.
"Adrian being Adrian would not compromise the car around the system," Horner told BBC Sport, "so the systems had to fit into his aero shape."
This has led to problems with reliability - not for the first time with a Newey design honed to the nth degree. In this case, the car is so tightly packaged that the team are finding it hard to manage the heat the Kers system generates.
Red Bull say they are working hard to get the system on to the car for the next race. But Vettel's performance in Melbourne may well reignite the debate that has been raging in F1 since Kers was first introduced to the sport in 2009.
That is as follows - putting Kers on a car makes it about 0.3secs a lap quicker. But, under the current regulations, can a car optimised without it - or in the case of Red Bull, designed with fewer compromises than normal - actually be made to be quicker? There is no definitive answer to that question for now; perhaps one will emerge over this season.
There were many more subjects about which the same could be said.
Most striking of all, perhaps, is what on earth happened to Webber in the second Red Bull? He and the team both shared the general mystification about the massive gap between the Australian and Vettel.
Fernando Alonso's post-qualifying prediction that Ferrari would be stronger in the race was proved right with a fighting drive back to fourth from a terrible first lap, during which he was briefly down in 10th. There was nothing fake about Ferrari's pace in pre-season testing - what can they achieve when they have a smooth weekend?
Alonso just missed a podium thanks to a superb drive from Renault's Vitaly Petrov in a car that is genuinely quick. It immediately made you wonder what the injured Robert Kubica could have achieved in that car.
There will be no quick answer to that one as the Pole continues his recovery from the terrible injuries he received in his rallying crash last month. But even with Petrov in it the car is a contender. The Russian's experienced team-mate Nick Heidfeld will surely bounce back from a poor start. Can Renault keep up with the breathless pace of development at the front?
The much-talked-about moveable rear wing, or drag-reduction system as it is officially known, seemed to work pretty well - in that it made overtaking possible but not too easy, although the debate about whether it is a step too far in terms of artificiality will doubtless continue.
If Sauber's Mexican rookie Sergio Perez continues in the manner he has started - notwithstanding the team's disqualification for a technical infringement - how long before the rumour mill starts wondering about this member of Ferrari's driver academy replacing Felipe Massa as Alonso's team-mate?
All these and more will keep people guessing for much longer than the two weeks before the Malaysian Grand Prix.
But there is no doubt about the biggest question of all. Hamilton said afterwards that he was confident McLaren could catch Red Bull. Is he right? On the evidence of Melbourne, the season could depend on it.
Nico Rosberg?s 2010 may not have been spectacular. He didn?t even stand-out in a year when fans were purring at the potential that is currently in the sport.
Many chose to wax lyrical about Sebastien Vettel, Lewis Hamilton and Robert Kubica and dream of their title-battles that could reach epic proportions in the next decade.
But Rosberg can easily ...
McLaren duo Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button can challenge for the 2011 Formula One Drivers' Championship, according to former champion Nigel Mansell.
The British pair finished fourth and fifth respectively in last season's standings, despite being in the top two places during the midway point of the campaign.
The McLaren car struggled to keep up with the Red Bull set-up in the second half of the campaign, but team officials are ...
- Kyle Busch goes wire-to-wire in N’wide Phoenix win AVONDALE, Ariz. -- Kyle Busch became the first driver in...
- Kyle Busch rolls to 8th Nationwide win of season CLERMONT, Ind. -- Carl Edwards and Brad Keselowski kept it...
- Kyle Busch talking with Tony Kanaan about NASCAR possibility AVONDALE, Ariz. -- Kyle Busch has had discussions with IndyCar...
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
?A public raised on a diet of Emerson Fittipaldi, Nelson Piquet and Ayrton Senna were simply appalled and saddened in equal measure by Massa?s apparent lack of ambition.?
Chevrolet has called the Ford Mustang franchise's Boss 302 and Shelby GT500 and raised the stakes by one supercharger. The obvious aim of the 2012 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 is to silence all the critics who flame the Camaro for being slower than the 5.0-liter competition from Ford.
To cure their case of horsepower envy, Chevrolet threw a supercharged 6.2-liter LSA making more than 550 horsepower between the Camaro's fenders. That power theoretically puts it atop even the mighty GT500 in a straight line.
To make sure the Camaro could take down the handling-oriented Boss 302 as well, they cribbed the magnetic dampers from the Corvette ZR1 for the ZL1. All that effort should add up to not only the fastest Camaro ever built, but the best-handling, as well. We can't wait to get our mitts on the car, but in the meantime, we'll slake our curiosity by hearing the LSA briefly come to life in the video after the jump (Warning: Auto play).
Gallery: 2012 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1
[Source: Motor Trend]Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Some of the most well-known highway removals in America — like New York City’s West Side Highway and San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway [...]
While I'm waiting on the decals for the 1969 ZL-1, I'm doing something I rarely do; started working on my next project. I'm naming this one "The Scarlet Chevy"
Building a 1955 Chevy Bel Air Convertible... RestoMod style.
Here's a picture of the 1955 Chevy that inspired me to build this model kit. It's not going to be 100% like this car. I'm just doing the paint job like this car. I'm mostly keeping the engine and most of the car stock.
I'll post pictures to show where I'm at on this build real soon.
HERE'S THE FINISHED PRODUCT!!
Below you can find the W.I.P.
The 2011 MotoGP Championship heads to Jerez, Spain this week, as the premier class gets ready for its second race of the season. 2011 so far has been a tough year for motorcycle tracks. First there was concern over whether Donington Park would get FIM homologation in time for World Superbike’s visit (spoiler alert: they did). Then there was concern over New Jersey Motorsports Park, which filed for Chapter 11 protection, as the east coast ...
Monday, March 28, 2011
Jean Todt arives for Wednesday's hearing
?Whether you are for or against team orders, if the FIA could not back up its own rules and nail a competitor in a blatant case such as this the rule really does need reviewing. Perhaps Ferrari?s thinly-veiled threat to take the matter to the civil courts if they were punished too harshly scared the governing body, who as much as admitted the flimsiness of its rule."Paul Weaver, reporting for the Guardian in Monza, was in favour of the ruling which keeps alive Ferrari?s slim chances in an enthralling championship.
?The World Motor Sport Council was right not to ruin a compelling Formula One season by taking away the 25 points Alonso collected in Germany. That would have put him out of the five-man title race. But the council was widely expected to increase the fine and possibly deduct points from the team, as opposed to the individual. In the end, it could be argued that common sense prevailed. But the decision will dismay those who were upset by the way Ferrari handled the situation as much as anything else.?The Daily Mail's Jonathan McEvoy expressed outrage at the FIA tearing up its own rule book by allowing Ferrari to escape unpunished.
"Although the race stewards fined them �65,000 for giving team orders in July, the FIA World Motor Sport Council, to whom the matter was referred, decided not to impose any further punishment. It leaves the sport's rulers open to derision. It was, after all, their rule they undermined. In a statement, the WMSC said the regulation banning team orders 'should be reviewed'."
The wreckage of Jochen Rindt's car at Barcelona
?Colin. I have been racing F1 for 5 years and I have made one mistake (I rammed Chris Amon in Clermont Ferrand) and I had one accident in Zandvoort due to gear selection failure otherwise I managed to stay out of trouble. This situation changed rapidly since I joined your team. ?Honestly your cars are so quick that we would still be competitive with a few extra pounds used to make the weakest parts stronger, on top of that I think you ought to spend some time checking what your different employes are doing, I sure the wishbones on the F2 car would have looked different. Please give my suggestions some thought, I can only drive a car in which I have some confidence, and I feel the point of no confidence is quite near.?A little more than a year later Rindt's Lotus suffered mechanical breakdown just before braking into one of the corners. He swerved violently to the left and crashed into a poorly-installed barrier, killing him instantly.