Discussion:
Old rules controversy - Tyrrell
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2012-07-27 18:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Just read this wiki entry.
Hmm, I do not recall that there was this 'clear & convincing'
observations and evidence in the past writtings on the
situation & controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight
during the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection
supply tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb
of lead shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped
in under significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and
rained down on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams
to sweep the shot away before their drivers pitted."

Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead
under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
News
2012-07-27 18:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings on
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Six inch (150mm) mortar.
build
2012-07-27 18:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings on
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Six inch (150mm) mortar.
Exactly. How did Tyrell get that amount of lead into the car so quickly without blowing a huge hole in the other side of the car?
Timmy
2012-07-27 21:05:31 UTC
Permalink
build wrote ...
Post by build
Exactly. How did Tyrell get that amount of lead into the car so quickly without blowing a huge hole in the other side of the car?
To quote the village drunk

Google is thataway >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bobster
2012-07-30 16:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Exactly. How did Tyrell get that amount of lead into the car so quickly without blowing a huge hole in the other side of the car?
Well it was lead SHOT, so you could pour it threw a funnel. One of the
charges bought against Tyrell was that they were using illegal ballast
- ballast had to be secured in one place and only by removable with a
tool (regs are different now, of course). Tyrell argued that
a) it was secured - by the injection water reservoir
b) you did need a tool because you had to remove said reservoir.

Which didn't impress the stewards, but it suggests that the reservoir
was designed to take that amount of lead shot.

Refuelling wasn't allowed that year. There were hard limits on the
amount of fuel a car could use over a race distance. There was no
standardised equipment and it's possible that it was a gravity feed.
But they'd be changing tyres anyway, so they had time to pour the lead
shot down a dirty great opening.

Those were the days. None of this namby pamby buggering around with
torque demand in the ECU maps. There'd been the ride hight that could
only be measured when the car was in the pits, thus a generation of
cars that were illegal when they were actually moving but legal when
they were stationary. There'd been the water cooled brakes. Tyrell had
also tried to explain the lead shot away as a fuel additive. THAT's
exploiting loop holes.
News
2012-07-30 16:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobster
Post by build
Exactly. How did Tyrell get that amount of lead into the car so quickly without blowing a huge hole in the other side of the car?
Well it was lead SHOT, so you could pour it threw a funnel. One of the
charges bought against Tyrell was that they were using illegal ballast
- ballast had to be secured in one place and only by removable with a
tool (regs are different now, of course). Tyrell argued that
a) it was secured - by the injection water reservoir
b) you did need a tool because you had to remove said reservoir.
Which didn't impress the stewards, but it suggests that the reservoir
was designed to take that amount of lead shot.
Refuelling wasn't allowed that year. There were hard limits on the
amount of fuel a car could use over a race distance. There was no
standardised equipment and it's possible that it was a gravity feed.
But they'd be changing tyres anyway, so they had time to pour the lead
shot down a dirty great opening.
Those were the days. None of this namby pamby buggering around with
torque demand in the ECU maps. There'd been the ride hight that could
only be measured when the car was in the pits, thus a generation of
cars that were illegal when they were actually moving but legal when
they were stationary. There'd been the water cooled brakes. Tyrell had
also tried to explain the lead shot away as a fuel additive. THAT's
exploiting loop holes.
Leaded fuel. LOL!
a425couple
2012-07-27 18:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this 'clear
& convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings on the
situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
Well, me not having that "recall"
seems to be that these are recently done cites!

http://gpfocus.com/memory-lane/1984-tyrrell%E2%80%99s-annus-horribilis/
1984: Tyrrell's Annus horribilis
By Ewan Marshall On August 25, 2011

& Lawrence, Mike (27 April 2005). "Scandal or Farce?"
(I'm unable to access this)
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead shot
to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
John Briggs
2012-07-27 18:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings on
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
--
John Briggs
a425couple
2012-07-30 03:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings on
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John.
That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size,
(has in it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot,
and 2 gallons ((20 pounds of water)) ).
Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
John Briggs
2012-07-30 13:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings on
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has in
it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20 pounds
of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier - you can't actually compress water (or lead, for
that matter...) :-)
--
John Briggs
build
2012-07-30 13:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings on
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has in
it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20 pounds
of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier - you can't actually compress water (or lead, for
that matter...) :-)
--
John Briggs
Well, you could compress both but they would not be heavier. What confuses me and (in public responses) Ken was how the team got the lead into the tank so quickly without shoving a hole in the other side of the tank from the inlet. Mind you I'm not saying it was not done but the answer to that question has never been answered.

beers,
News
2012-07-30 13:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by John Briggs
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings on
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has in
it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20 pounds
of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier - you can't actually compress water (or lead, for
that matter...) :-)
--
John Briggs
Well, you could compress both but they would not be heavier. What confuses me and (in public responses) Ken was how the team got the lead into the tank so quickly without shoving a hole in the other side of the tank from the inlet. Mind you I'm not saying it was not done but the answer to that question has never been answered.
beers,
The mass flow rate and transfer being the issues.
Bigbird
2012-07-30 18:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by a425couple
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was
this
Post by John Briggs
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past
writtings on
Post by John Briggs
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car
underweight during
Post by John Briggs
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water
injection supply
Post by John Briggs
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb
of lead
Post by John Briggs
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in
under
Post by John Briggs
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and
rained down
Post by John Briggs
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams
to sweep
Post by John Briggs
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under
pressure!!!
Post by John Briggs
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of
water -
Post by John Briggs
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has in
it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20 pounds
of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier - you can't actually compress water (or lead, for
that matter...) :-)
--
John Briggs
Well, you could compress both
How much could you compress them?
Post by build
but they would not be heavier.
How much does a gallon of "compressed water" weigh?
News
2012-07-30 18:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by build
Post by a425couple
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was
this
Post by John Briggs
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past
writtings on
Post by John Briggs
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car
underweight during
Post by John Briggs
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water
injection supply
Post by John Briggs
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb
of lead
Post by John Briggs
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in
under
Post by John Briggs
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and
rained down
Post by John Briggs
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams
to sweep
Post by John Briggs
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under
pressure!!!
Post by John Briggs
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of
water -
Post by John Briggs
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has in
it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20 pounds
of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier - you can't actually compress water (or lead, for
that matter...) :-)
--
John Briggs
Well, you could compress both
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
Mark
2012-07-30 19:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very much,
and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations, you can
treat liquids as uncompressible.
News
2012-07-30 20:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very much,
and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations, you can
treat liquids as uncompressible.
WTF? That's exactly what hydraulic lock indicates -- water is
incompressible.
Mark
2012-07-30 20:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very much,
and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations, you can
treat liquids as uncompressible.
WTF? That's exactly what hydraulic lock indicates -- water is
incompressible.
I was pointing out that it's not that it's incompressible, just that for
most purposes it can be treated as such.

It's a pedantic point, I agree, but to simply say it's incompressible
isn't strictly true...
John Briggs
2012-07-30 21:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very much,
and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations, you can
treat liquids as uncompressible.
WTF? That's exactly what hydraulic lock indicates -- water is
incompressible.
I was pointing out that it's not that it's incompressible, just that for
most purposes it can be treated as such.
It's a pedantic point, I agree, but to simply say it's incompressible
isn't strictly true...
It's true for any reasonable (and for most unreasonable) pressures.
--
John Briggs
Mark
2012-07-30 21:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very much,
and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations, you can
treat liquids as uncompressible.
WTF? That's exactly what hydraulic lock indicates -- water is
incompressible.
I was pointing out that it's not that it's incompressible, just that for
most purposes it can be treated as such.
It's a pedantic point, I agree, but to simply say it's incompressible
isn't strictly true...
It's true for any reasonable (and for most unreasonable) pressures.
I'm not disagreeing, just covering off avenues for the serious pedants!
;-)
Bigbird
2012-07-30 22:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress
very much, >>>> and only at relatively high pressure. For many
situations, you can >>>> treat liquids as uncompressible.
Post by John Briggs
Post by Mark
Post by News
WTF? That's exactly what hydraulic lock indicates -- water is
incompressible.
I was pointing out that it's not that it's incompressible, just
that for >> most purposes it can be treated as such.
Post by John Briggs
Post by Mark
It's a pedantic point, I agree, but to simply say it's
incompressible >> isn't strictly true...
Post by John Briggs
It's true for any reasonable (and for most unreasonable) pressures.
I'm not disagreeing, just covering off avenues for the serious
pedants! ;-)
Well for all those pedants would you like to put some figures to what
you think best desribed as not very much. Something rather more
significant than negligible?
Mark
2012-07-30 22:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
I'm not disagreeing, just covering off avenues for the serious
pedants! ;-)
Well for all those pedants would you like to put some figures to what
you think best desribed as not very much. Something rather more
significant than negligible?
I'm not playing that game. Anything over 0% is not "incompressible".

Or do you have another definition?
Bigbird
2012-07-30 22:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
I'm not disagreeing, just covering off avenues for the serious
pedants! ;-)
Well for all those pedants would you like to put some figures to
what you think best desribed as not very much. Something rather more
significant than negligible?
I'm not playing that game. Anything over 0% is not "incompressible".
Or do you have another definition?
Any intelligent person accepts negligible as a more sensible and
practical definition.
Mark
2012-07-30 22:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
I'm not disagreeing, just covering off avenues for the serious
pedants! ;-)
Well for all those pedants would you like to put some figures to
what you think best desribed as not very much. Something rather more
significant than negligible?
I'm not playing that game. Anything over 0% is not "incompressible".
Or do you have another definition?
Any intelligent person accepts negligible as a more sensible and
practical definition.
Agreed.

As I said, just covering off avenues for the pedants. Are you saying we
don't have more than our fair share of those?
;-)
John Briggs
2012-07-30 22:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by John Briggs
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress
very much,>>>> and only at relatively high pressure. For many
situations, you can>>>> treat liquids as uncompressible.
Post by John Briggs
Post by Mark
Post by News
WTF? That's exactly what hydraulic lock indicates -- water is
incompressible.
I was pointing out that it's not that it's incompressible, just
that for>> most purposes it can be treated as such.
Post by John Briggs
Post by Mark
It's a pedantic point, I agree, but to simply say it's
incompressible>> isn't strictly true...
Post by John Briggs
It's true for any reasonable (and for most unreasonable) pressures.
I'm not disagreeing, just covering off avenues for the serious
pedants! ;-)
Well for all those pedants would you like to put some figures to what
you think best desribed as not very much. Something rather more
significant than negligible?
Negligible at normal pressures (and most abnormal ones...)
--
John Briggs
Bigbird
2012-07-30 22:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very
much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations, you
can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Just many? When can't you?
John Briggs
2012-07-30 22:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very
much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations, you
can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Just many? When can't you?
For water, at 40 MPa - 1.8% decrease in volume (Oceans at 4 km depth.)
--
John Briggs
Kerry Montgomery
2012-07-30 22:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very
much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations, you
can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Just many? When can't you?
For water, at 40 MPa - 1.8% decrease in volume (Oceans at 4 km depth.)
--
John Briggs
John Briggs,
Thanks for some actual information!
Kerry
Bigbird
2012-07-30 22:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very
much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations,
you can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Just many? When can't you?
For water, at 40 MPa - 1.8% decrease in volume (Oceans at 4 km depth.)
Thank you Wikipedia. Can you now put that in the context of the
situation described above.
News
2012-07-30 22:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by John Briggs
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very
much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations,
you can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Just many? When can't you?
For water, at 40 MPa - 1.8% decrease in volume (Oceans at 4 km depth.)
Thank you Wikipedia. Can you now put that in the context of the
situation described above.
To the point, how's the racing down there?
Ian Dalziel
2012-07-31 17:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
Post by John Briggs
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very
much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations,
you can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Just many? When can't you?
For water, at 40 MPa - 1.8% decrease in volume (Oceans at 4 km depth.)
Thank you Wikipedia. Can you now put that in the context of the
situation described above.
To the point, how's the racing down there?
Superb - there hasn't been a dry track for years.
--
Ian D
John Briggs
2012-07-30 22:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by John Briggs
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very
much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations,
you can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Just many? When can't you?
For water, at 40 MPa - 1.8% decrease in volume (Oceans at 4 km depth.)
Thank you Wikipedia. Can you now put that in the context of the
situation described above.
40 MPa is about 400 atmospheres.
--
John Briggs
Bigbird
2012-07-30 22:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Bigbird
Post by John Briggs
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress
very much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many
situations, you can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Just many? When can't you?
For water, at 40 MPa - 1.8% decrease in volume (Oceans at 4 km depth.)
Thank you Wikipedia. Can you now put that in the context of the
situation described above.
40 MPa is about 400 atmospheres.
I'm pretty sure that isn't achievable in the pitlane.
News
2012-07-30 22:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by John Briggs
Post by Bigbird
Post by John Briggs
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress
very much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many
situations, you can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Just many? When can't you?
For water, at 40 MPa - 1.8% decrease in volume (Oceans at 4 km depth.)
Thank you Wikipedia. Can you now put that in the context of the
situation described above.
40 MPa is about 400 atmospheres.
I'm pretty sure that isn't achievable in the pitlane.
Think so? I'll bet Massa feels that much pressure.
Mark
2012-07-30 22:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very
much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations, you
can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Just many? When can't you?
When the pressure's high enough?

Just sayin'...
Bigbird
2012-07-30 22:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very
much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations,
you >> can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Post by Bigbird
Just many? When can't you?
When the pressure's high enough?
Just sayin'...
I think we started with a pedant making a silly comment. Your
restatement has been of negligible value...that is not to say it is
entirely worthless...at least as far as you are concerned. :p
Mark
2012-07-30 22:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Bigbird
Post by Mark
Post by News
Post by Bigbird
How much could you compress them?
The concept of hydraulic lock in engines suggests otherwise.
No, it just suggests (correctly) that liquids don't compress very
much, and only at relatively high pressure. For many situations,
you >> can treat liquids as uncompressible.
Post by Bigbird
Just many? When can't you?
When the pressure's high enough?
Just sayin'...
I think we started with a pedant making a silly comment. Your
restatement has been of negligible value...that is not to say it is
entirely worthless...at least as far as you are concerned. :p
:-P

Just bored.
David Melville
2012-07-30 23:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by John Briggs
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings on
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under
pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has in
it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20 pounds
of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier - you can't actually compress water (or lead, for
that matter...) :-)
--
John Briggs
Well, you could compress both but they would not be heavier. What
confuses me and (in public responses) Ken was how the team got the lead
into the tank so quickly without shoving a hole in the other side of the
tank from the inlet. Mind you I'm not saying it was not done but the
answer to that question has never been answered.
beers,
Remove your foot. Water is incompressible. How else do you think
hydraulics works?

Cheers,
Dave
John Briggs
2012-07-30 23:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Melville
Post by build
Post by John Briggs
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear& convincing' observations and evidence in the past
writtings on
the situation& controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under
pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot& the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has in
it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20 pounds
of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier - you can't actually compress water (or lead, for
that matter...) :-)
--
John Briggs
Well, you could compress both but they would not be heavier. What
confuses me and (in public responses) Ken was how the team got the lead
into the tank so quickly without shoving a hole in the other side of the
tank from the inlet. Mind you I'm not saying it was not done but the
answer to that question has never been answered.
beers,
Remove your foot. Water is incompressible. How else do you think
hydraulics works?
Where's a pedant when you need one?
--
John Briggs
David Melville
2012-07-31 01:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by David Melville
Post by build
Post by John Briggs
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear& convincing' observations and evidence in the past
writtings on
the situation& controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under
pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot& the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has in
it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20 pounds
of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier - you can't actually compress water (or lead, for
that matter...) :-)
--
John Briggs
Well, you could compress both but they would not be heavier. What
confuses me and (in public responses) Ken was how the team got the
lead into the tank so quickly without shoving a hole in the other side
of the tank from the inlet. Mind you I'm not saying it was not done
but the answer to that question has never been answered.
beers,
Remove your foot. Water is incompressible. How else do you think
hydraulics works?
Where's a pedant when you need one?
I can see youuuuuuu!

Cheers,
Dave
Alister
2012-07-30 13:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings
on the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy ----"It
turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during the
race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained
down on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams
to sweep the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has
in it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20
pounds of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier - you can't actually compress water (or lead, for
that matter...) :-)
What was being used to provide the pressure ?
Do you know how much Air actualy weights?
(Although to be fair unless they are running at V heigh pressure it would
be ounces rather than pounds)
--
If your happiness depends on what somebody else does, I guess you do
have a problem.
-- Richard Bach, "Illusions"
down_hill
2012-07-30 14:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alister
What was being used to provide the pressure ?
Do you know how much Air actualy weights?
(Although to be fair unless they are running at V heigh pressure it would
be ounces rather than pounds)
I believe air/nitrogen they used a fuel type canister to put in mixture,
he did not remember the pressure number but the words used were a real lot.
The mixture was rammed in so hard that it caused buckling in bodywork
and containing vessel.

any one mention the 100 pound rear wing used for qualifying sandbagging?



Been at mid-ohio F2000 crashfest for last 4 days so not up to speed on
the group so sorry if I am redundant but just got off the phone with a
former tyrrell crew member.

I seem to get more F1 pool points when I do not watch the races in first
run.
a425couple
2012-07-30 16:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by down_hill
Post by Alister
What was being used to provide the pressure ?
Do you know how much Air actualy weights?
(Although to be fair unless they are running at V heigh pressure it would
be ounces rather than pounds)
I believe air/nitrogen they used a fuel type canister to put in mixture,
he did not remember the pressure number but the words used were a real lot.
The mixture was rammed in so hard that it caused buckling in bodywork and
containing vessel.
--so not up to speed on the group so sorry if I am redundant but just got
off the phone with a former tyrrell crew member.
Wow! Neat.
What is his best memory / guess on the size of the
lead shot, size of hose, and rough sizes of nozzel fittings?

(I will admit, this still reminds me more of a 'weapons system'
than automotive racing equipment!)
Post by down_hill
any one mention the 100 pound rear wing used for qualifying sandbagging?
Nope. I will read it if you care to spend the time to
tell us about it.
Post by down_hill
Been at mid-ohio F2000 crashfest for last 4 days
Yes, sounds like plenty of "incidents"!
http://www.f2000championshipseries.com/
But, then it is seeming like so many of these more recent
series in the US, are drawing drivers,,, willing to 'take risks'!
Post by down_hill
I seem to get more F1 pool points when I do not watch the races in first
run.
Best of luck to you in that.
down_hill
2012-07-31 03:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by down_hill
--so not up to speed on the group so sorry if I am redundant but just
got off the phone with a former tyrrell crew member.
Wow! Neat.
What is his best memory / guess on the size of the
lead shot, size of hose, and rough sizes of nozzel fittings?
No he has been in pro racing since the 70's and many little details have
gotten lost. He was one of the speaker at my tech conference 3 years
ago. He is slatted to be at next years conference on data acquisition
headed by race engineer Bob Knox. I would have liked to plug him for
more information but he was home and trying to get things done for the
wife. My best conversations with him are when I am driving home from an
event and he is waiting in a airport to go somewhere.
We discussed breakfast in October when the F2000 runs at Watkins Glen,
he thinks he is home.
Post by down_hill
any one mention the 100 pound rear wing used for qualifying sandbagging?
The short story was they would start qualifying with heavy wing and he
said at near the end of qualifying they would send two guys out to
change to lighter wing make some other adjustments <as cover> and then
go set a good time. The car was so heavily sprung from the sliding
skirts and ground effects that 100lbs was not noticeable. One of the
shops I work with has a Tyrrell test car from that era and the car was
used as discussion points at the last conference.
Post by down_hill
Been at mid-ohio F2000 crashfest for last 4 days
Yes, sounds like plenty of "incidents"!
http://www.f2000championshipseries.com/
But, then it is seeming like so many of these more recent
series in the US, are drawing drivers,,, willing to 'take risks'!
We have Robert La Rocca who runs in F3 and is imported from a south
american county, we have a fairly large master field and quite a few
rookies and kids looking to move up the ladder. The f1600 and F Atlantic
series is drawing talent and the youngsters are putting on a show in the
f1600 which allows the 1600 honda and the original kent engine and some
great races have taken place.
So many of the drivers that I assist for hardware support are moving
up the ladder it is nice to watch them go. Victor Carbone series
champion 2 years ago won in Indy lights at Las Vegas last year. If it
involves wires and electronics my opinion or testing tools get thrown
into mix.

But I missed a ride about mid ohio with a driving instructor named Tommy
Byrne of crash & Byrned fame, I asked Tommy for a ride when he would go
out coaching but when he came to look for me I had stepped into a
trailer to answer a computer question- next year.

I call the parts provider to the series a vulture he has great weekends
on crashfests. Great series nice people good vendors fun tracks non spec
series, one team I work with is developing new Radon <poisonous gas
jokes> so I get to do real development work. There are two new F1600
chassis and discussion of others solely built for honda engine.
So if you like to be involved with formula car racing & development it
is not a bad place to be.
So I can not fly to events as my truck is packed with tools and spares
of the trade <repair every electrical connector found on race car> plus
cooler with milk for tea and 12oz bottles of coke & the proper number of
uniforms so no washing clothes on the road.
Alister
2012-07-30 18:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by down_hill
Post by Alister
What was being used to provide the pressure ?
Do you know how much Air actualy weights?
(Although to be fair unless they are running at V heigh pressure it
would be ounces rather than pounds)
I believe air/nitrogen they used a fuel type canister to put in mixture,
he did not remember the pressure number but the words used were a real lot.
A real lot can be interpreted in many ways depending on what you are used
to. an air line in a garage is often referred to a high pressure but is
usually less that the medium pressure hose on my diving regulator (8 - 10
bar).
The SCUBA cylinder on the other hand is filled top 232 Bar and weights
over 1/2 stone heavier when full.
Post by down_hill
The mixture was rammed in so hard that it caused buckling in bodywork
and containing vessel.
Not surprising, it sounds insane even the 2 - 3 bar in a car tyre can
cause considerable damage & that is without the aid of water & lead shot!
--
Zippy's brain cells are straining to bridge synapses ...
a425couple
2012-07-30 17:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings on
the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy
----"It turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during
the race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained down
on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams to sweep
the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has in
it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20 pounds
of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier -
Well, it being pressurized enough to cause the "rain",
requires it being strongly built. Plus, enough capacity
to hold a fair hunk of gas (air, nitrogen, whatever)
to keep up decent pressure until the filling is completed.

Whatever, I get the impression it was not carried out
to car, but was done from an elevated stationary tank
(behind the 'wall') through a hose to the car in the hot pits.
Post by John Briggs
you can't actually compress water (or lead, for that matter...) :-)
Well, for most practical purposes, that is generally correct.
I'm (painfully) reminded of a stock I once bought
(yeah, yeah, grumble, OK, still own...)
http://www.flowwaterjet.com/
He did figure out a way, that does actually compress water,
then use the very high pressure to cut things!
David Melville
2012-07-30 23:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by John Briggs
Just read this wiki entry. Hmm, I do not recall that there was this
'clear & convincing' observations and evidence in the past writtings
on the situation & controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_Racing#1984_controversy ----"It
turned out that Tyrrell were running the car underweight during the
race then, in the closing stages, topping up water injection supply
tanks with an additional 2 gallons of water mixed with 140 lb of lead
shot to ensure it made the weight limit. As this was pumped in under
significant pressure, some escaped through the tank vent and rained
down on neighbouring pits, in sufficient quantities for other teams
to sweep the shot away before their drivers pitted."
Sheesh!! 16 pounds of water and 140 pounds of lead under pressure!!!
Anyone know the size of shot & the size of hose?
Presumably Imperial gallons, so that would be be 20 pounds of water -
and about 1.25 gallons of lead shot.
Thank you John. That is an insightful different way of looking at it.
So, the filler tank is a little over 3 Imperial gallons in size, (has
in it 1.25 gallons ((140 pounds)) of lead shot, and 2 gallons ((20
pounds of water)) ). Plus, it's pressurized, so even heavier.
It won't be heavier - you can't actually compress water (or lead, for
that matter...) :-)
(Shhhhh. You're spoiling my private fun)

Cheers,
Dave
Loading...