Extra fuel tank?

Can I hide a part of the text by a "More..." link?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

CarGuru > Formula-1 > Extra fuel tank? 9 May 2005 02:50:01

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

;-)
;-)

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Saturn Sky Red Line
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. I noticed will driving yesterday that when I turned on the…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

They have birthday today:

Esther

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Donington gets planning…
That's about it, really. Wonder if they still think they can get the money? The story's on the BBC…

New F1 Website
Please take a look at my F1 website It is fairly new, so i would really appreciate some visitors…

A buck?
I have a twenty in my pocket right now. Could I have gotten the team? -- - dillon I am not invalid…

Recent forum topics:

Brake Lights won't work
brake lights on 1996 Grand Am won't work. Fuse and lights are fine. Suggestions?

honda civic 87 model problem
i would like some information on why my honda civic wont start at times after its hot when running it…

mazda premacy glowplug lights…
i have a mazda premacy 2litre diesel . have a problem at the moment ,glowplug light flashing with loss…

I have a 96 chrysler new york…
I have a 96 chrysler new york lhs but no owners manuel and on the message center there is a light that i…

Recent forum comments:

RE: Ask How To Replace Headlight…
how do I release the locking ring on the headlamp bulb in a 99 dodge ram 2500?

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
who are you speaking to

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
I can feel something like a kick when I first hit the gas pedal when I take off.

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Heating problem in 1988 Honda…
well thats no always true!!! my husband replaced the thermostat/thermometer..... and the water…

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: 98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I had the same problem with the instrument panel, after about a months worth of greif, and dollars…

Модератор:

Administrator


Extra fuel tank?
Paul Harman 3 May 2005 18:49:05
	Flicking through PA's wire service, as one does, I see that the charges against BAR involve a 'secret fuel tank' inside the BAR. I have to wonder what, exactly, the point of this would be. Although there are shades of "water-cooled brakes" to the matter, I really fail to see what BAR were trying to achieve. If you need your ballast to be where the fuel tank is, why not make a heavier tank...? Where can I find out more about the story? Preferably without having to subscribe to some web site's spam list... Paul
		Add comment


Matti Vuori 3 May 2005 22:19:04 [ permanent link ]
	"Paul Harman" <chatterbox@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote in news:073901c54fed$b613c6c0$c868b290@panews.press.net: Flicking through PA's wire service, as one does, I see that the> charges against BAR involve a 'secret fuel tank' inside the BAR.> I have to wonder what, exactly, the point of this would be. Although> there are shades of "water-cooled brakes" to the matter, I really fail> to see what BAR were trying to achieve. If you need your ballast to be> where the fuel tank is, why not make a heavier tank...?> Where can I find out more about the story? Preferably without having> to subscribe to some web site's spam list... Autosport Atlas has a great article about the subject - but you'll need to subscribe to read the site's content. Fortunately, it's well worth the cost. See http://www.autosport-atlas.com/ -- Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>
		Add comment


Federica Massagrande 3 May 2005 23:31:07 [ permanent link ]
	On 03 May 2005 18:19:04 GMT, Matti Vuori <mvuori@koti.soon.fi> wrote: "Paul Harman" <chatterbox@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote in>news:073901c54fed$b613c6c0$c868b290@panews.press.net: > Flicking through PA's wire service, as one does, I see that the>> charges against BAR involve a 'secret fuel tank' inside the BAR.>> I have to wonder what, exactly, the point of this would be. Although>> there are shades of "water-cooled brakes" to the matter, I really fail>> to see what BAR were trying to achieve. If you need your ballast to be>> where the fuel tank is, why not make a heavier tank...?>> Where can I find out more about the story? Preferably without having>> to subscribe to some web site's spam list...> Autosport Atlas has a great article about the subject - but you'll need >to subscribe to read the site's content. Fortunately, it's well worth the >cost. See http://www.autosport-atlas.com/ Not much available free in English on the subject, but there is a little bit on the Beeb. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4486869.stm which pretty much has the same things to say in English on the BAR situation as GdS does in Italian. Fede Federica Massagrande - Webmistress of FedeF1 fede@dont.spam.me.com (dont.spam.me := fedef1) http://www.fedef1.com/ -or- http://www.fedef1.co.uk/
		Add comment


David Betts 4 May 2005 10:49:03 [ permanent link ]
	On 03 May 2005 14:49:05 GMT, "Paul Harman" <chatterbox@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote: Flicking through PA's wire service, as one does, I see that the charges >against BAR involve a 'secret fuel tank' inside the BAR.> I have to wonder what, exactly, the point of this would be. Although there >are shades of "water-cooled brakes" to the matter, I really fail to see what >BAR were trying to achieve. If you need your ballast to be where the fuel >tank is, why not make a heavier tank...? If they were cheating - I'm pre-judging the issue, but that does seem to be a possibity - then the point would be to run nearly 6 kgs lighter than the weight limit in the middle stint by using extra fuel as ballast. The extra tank - according to BAR - is no secret, has always been there and Charlie Whiting has always known about it. They say it is a collector chamber related to maintaining fuel pressure. All fully documented on the Autosport-Atlas web-site. You really can't expect to keep up with a sport as complex as F1 through something as superficial and unreliable as a general news agency. David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) "In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" - Frank Gardner British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
		Add comment


Paul Harman 4 May 2005 12:31:06 [ permanent link ]
	From: "David Betts" <dabetts@ntlworld.com>> If they were cheating - I'm pre-judging the issue, but that does seem> to be a possibity - then the point would be to run nearly 6 kgs> lighter than the weight limit in the middle stint by using extra fuel> as ballast. So the internal tank drains itself at the start of the race (after pre-race scrutineering) and gets filled up at the last fuel stop? So the BAR would short-fill at the first stop and long-fill at the second. I wonder if that's noticeable in their timings. I do recall the FIA's prediction of how many laps some cars would be doing on their final fuel was several laps longer than the remaining race duration - but I can't remember if it was Button's BAR in particular. Then again, perhaps 6kg of fuel won't get an F1 car very far... All fully documented on the Autosport-Atlas web-site. You really can't> expect to keep up with a sport as complex as F1 through something as> superficial and unreliable as a general news agency. I was kind-of hoping that I could keep up with F1 by participating in this newsgroup - that is, after all, why I was a proponent and help moderate it };*) I just flick through PA because it happens to be right here in front of me. I don't really expect enormous depth or techincal detail from our coverage, but occasionally it's the place where I first learn a bit of news and would like to know more. So I ask questions here - heaven knows, we could do with a few posts every now and then! Paul
		Add comment


Brian Lawrence 4 May 2005 14:19:04 [ permanent link ]
	"Paul Harman" <chatterbox@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:> Then again, perhaps 6kg of fuel won't get an F1 car very far... At Imola it is estimated that you need 3.1 kg of fuel per lap - at racing speed. Therefore it is possible that the car could have been underweight for the last two laps of each stint - except for the final stint. At Imola it is estimated that each 10 kg of additional weight slows a car by 0.36s per lap, so being 6 kg "underweight" might shave 0.2s off lap times. -- Brian
		Add comment


Paul Harman 4 May 2005 14:49:02 [ permanent link ]
	From: "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com>> At Imola it is estimated that you need 3.1 kg of fuel per lap - at> racing speed. Therefore it is possible that the car could have been> underweight for the last two laps of each stint - except for the> final stint. At Imola it is estimated that each 10 kg of additional> weight slows a car by 0.36s per lap, so being 6 kg "underweight"> might shave 0.2s off lap times. So, BAR risk expulsion from the championship for the benefit of half a second advantage over the whole race distance...? <grin> Although to be fair, two-tenths in a critical lap could make a difference. Paul
		Add comment


Bigbird 4 May 2005 16:19:06 [ permanent link ]
	Paul Harman wrote:> From: "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com>> > At Imola it is estimated that you need 3.1 kg of fuel per lap - at> > racing speed. Therefore it is possible that the car could have been> > underweight for the last two laps of each stint - except for the> > final stint. At Imola it is estimated that each 10 kg of additional> > weight slows a car by 0.36s per lap, so being 6 kg "underweight"> > might shave 0.2s off lap times.> So, BAR risk expulsion from the championship for the benefit of half a> second advantage over the whole race distance...? <grin> Although to> be fair, two-tenths in a critical lap could make a difference.> A closer estimation of the advantage is based on the speed running underweight compared to their speed if they had refilled at the correct weight. Nearer to 2s per lap for two laps on each occasion. MS needed just 6s to go from 10th to 3rd during the first round of pit stops so this could be more than a little useful in many race situations.
		Add comment


Neil Padgen 4 May 2005 23:27:30 [ permanent link ]
	Paul Harman wrote: From: "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com>>> At Imola it is estimated that you need 3.1 kg of fuel per lap - at>> racing speed. Therefore it is possible that the car could have been>> underweight for the last two laps of each stint - except for the>> final stint. At Imola it is estimated that each 10 kg of additional>> weight slows a car by 0.36s per lap, so being 6 kg "underweight">> might shave 0.2s off lap times.> So, BAR risk expulsion from the championship for the benefit of half a> second advantage over the whole race distance...? <grin> Although to be> fair, two-tenths in a critical lap could make a difference. But, as the Autosport-Atlas article points out, it's not just two-tenths in a critical lap: compared to a fully-legal car following the same pit strategy, the dubious car could carry 10kg less fuel over the entire race distance. That might have added up to some fifteen seconds over the course of the Imola race. -- Neil
		Add comment


Carl Warnell 5 May 2005 10:44:34 [ permanent link ]
	Neil Padgen wrote: But, as the Autosport-Atlas article points out, it's not just two-tenths in> a critical lap: compared to a fully-legal car following the same pit> strategy, the dubious car could carry 10kg less fuel over the entire race> distance. That might have added up to some fifteen seconds over the course> of the Imola race. But the reality wouldn't be like that (I think...) Assume BAR and fully-legal car are adopting the same strategy (1 stop, for argument's sake). They'd start the race at the same weight, but with the extra 6kg of fuel they'd be able to stop two laps later. From then on, we can assume both cars would weigh the same to the end of the race (when they'd be weighed in scrutineering, and would weigh the same). So the advantage is running 2 laps with hardly any fuel vs. the "legal" car running those 2 laps fully-fuelled. I think the pitstops would take the same time, as although the BAR would now need to consume 6kg less fuel than the legal car to get to the end of the race, they've also got to fill up the "missing" 6kg to get back to minimum weight. I hope this kind of makes sense. It's still quite a significant advantage, running a couple of laps something like 50kg down on your opponent. But that's the kind of thing that can happen in race strategy anyway, e.g. with someone coming in early due to backmarkers, or staying out an extra couple of laps, etc.
		Add comment


David Betts 5 May 2005 11:25:08 [ permanent link ]
	On 04 May 2005 08:31:06 GMT, "Paul Harman" <chatterbox@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote: I was kind-of hoping that I could keep up with F1 by participating in this >newsgroup - that is, after all, why I was a proponent and help moderate >it };*) I wouldn't ever bank on usenet to keep myself informed. Much of what is posted is, after all, pretty ill-informed <g>. Anyway, most of it is opinion, which is as it should be. I just flick through PA because it happens to be right here in front of me. >I don't really expect enormous depth or techincal detail from our coverage, >but occasionally it's the place where I first learn a bit of news and would >like to know more. So I ask questions here - heaven knows, we could do with >a few posts every now and then! No argument with that, but as I've said before, there isn't the same need for this newsgroup that there was a few years ago. If you're serious about keeping up with F1 you really need to check out the newsgroups on a daily basis, though. If you're not prepared to subscribe to Autosport-Atlas there are alternatives. The ITV site used to be OK, although I haven't visited it this season. Anyhow, BAR's defence seems to be based on the fact that they don't run the cars underweight because the extra fuel needed for the collector is on board all the time. What they are effectively doing, therefore, is including this fuel as ballast. They claim they think this is legal. It clearly isn't. Plus, of course, they are saying that we are good guys and wouldn't do anything illegal deliberately. If we have misinterpreted the rules, please accept that we did so in good faith and just give us a little fine. (Oh yes, and if you do chuck us out we'll probalby take it to the civil courts because we will have nothing to lose.) Bernie seems to think they will be found guilty. He is suggesting they shouldn't be thrown out, but that a fine would be insufficient. His proposal is that the team loses its points for the whole season and the drivers lose their points to date. Of course, if they are thrown out he is down to 18 cars. He can't insist on other teams running more cars because the field had 20 entries at the start of the season. On the other hand, Mclaren are running a third car on Fridays anyway, as are Sauber and Minardi, so there might be 'volunteers'. David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) "In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" - Frank Gardner British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
		Add comment


Kim Andrews 5 May 2005 12:07:04 [ permanent link ]
	On 5 May 2005 07:25:08 GMT, David Betts <dabetts@ntlworld.com> wrote: If you're serious about keeping up with F1 you really need to check>out the newsgroups on a daily basis, though. If you're not prepared to>subscribe to Autosport-Atlas there are alternatives. The ITV site used>to be OK, although I haven't visited it this season. Luckily, there is no need to be "serious" about keeping up with F1, in order to be a member of this newsgroup, and just taking an interest is allowed. Therefore, one does not need to "be prepared to subscribe" to anything. Gosh David, you take F1 almost as seriously as it takes itself! Let's not start being to superior about whether or not we're "real fans", shall we? Room for all here, surely!? -- ([:]) by Kimbo! www.foca.co.uk Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I am not a moderator. note: hotmail address is a spam bin, write to kim at foca_co_uk for a reply
		Add comment


Emma 5 May 2005 12:31:05 [ permanent link ]
	Kim Andrews <somerat@hotmail.com> wrote:>Let's not start being to superior about whether or not we're>"real fans", shall we? Room for all here, surely!? Of course, hey some of the posters here don't even like those pointy cars that much. -- Emma - The Chocolate Monster http://www.chocmonster.rules.it http://www.altgallery.shows.it
		Add comment


Will 5 May 2005 16:17:55 [ permanent link ]
	In article <60hj71pf6b0j5olc27gj0vfgbhordg5m52@4ax.com>, dabetts@ntlworld.com says... Anyhow, BAR's defence seems to be based on the fact that they don't> run the cars underweight because the extra fuel needed for the> collector is on board all the time. What they are effectively doing,> therefore, is including this fuel as ballast. They claim they think> this is legal. It clearly isn't.> Does this not them become "essential fluids", such as coolant, lubricating oil etc.? That is if it really is essential... -- Regards, Will.
		Add comment


Phil Newnham 6 May 2005 02:27:40 [ permanent link ]
	David Betts wrote:> Anyhow, BAR's defence seems to be based on the fact that they don't> run the cars underweight because the extra fuel needed for the> collector is on board all the time. What they are effectively doing,> therefore, is including this fuel as ballast. They claim they think> this is legal. It clearly isn't. If the fuel is needed for the fuel system to operate, then it is by definition not ballast, as is every other part of the car that is required to be there in order for it to work properly. That the FIA have ruled that it is ballast implies, to me at least, that if it was removed, or if enough of it was removed to bring the car below the 600kg limit, then the car would in fact continue to work as if nothing had happened. In that case, it would be ballast. -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
		Add comment


David Betts 6 May 2005 10:43:04 [ permanent link ]
	On 5 May 2005 08:07:04 GMT, Kim Andrews <somerat@hotmail.com> wrote: On 5 May 2005 07:25:08 GMT, David Betts <dabetts@ntlworld.com> wrote:> If you're serious about keeping up with F1 you really need to check>>out the newsgroups on a daily basis, though. If you're not prepared to>>subscribe to Autosport-Atlas there are alternatives. The ITV site used>>to be OK, although I haven't visited it this season.> Luckily, there is no need to be "serious" about keeping up with F1, in>order to be a member of this newsgroup, and just taking an interest is>allowed. Therefore, one does not need to "be prepared to subscribe" to>anything. Gosh David, you take F1 almost as seriously as it takes>itself! Let's not start being to superior about whether or not we're>"real fans", shall we? Room for all here, surely!? No intention of being 'superior', Kim. Not sure where you get that from. Simply saying that if you want to keep up, this isn't necessarily the best place to do so. You have to read what I said in the context of the post to which I was replying. David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) "In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" - Frank Gardner British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
		Add comment


Kim Andrews 6 May 2005 12:01:06 [ permanent link ]
	On 6 May 2005 06:43:04 GMT, David Betts <dabetts@ntlworld.com> wrote: No intention of being 'superior', Kim. Jolly pleased to hear it old bean. Not sure where you get that>from. There just seemed to me to be a tone creeping in, in that and your previous post, no doubt invented from my fevered imagination. :o) Shan't mention it again! Simply saying that if you want to keep up, this isn't>necessarily the best place to do so. You have to read what I said in>the context of the post to which I was replying. It's the only way I know how to read. :o) -- ([:]) by Kimbo! www.foca.co.uk Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I am not a moderator. note: hotmail address is a spam bin, write to kim at foca_co_uk for a reply
		Add comment


A425couple 6 May 2005 20:50:05 [ permanent link ]
	"Will" <not.me@no.way.com> wrote in message> In article > dabetts@ntlworld.com says...> > BAR's defence seems to be based on the fact that they don't> > run the cars underweight because the extra fuel needed for the> > collector is on board all the time.> Does this not them become "essential fluids", such as coolant,> lubricating oil etc.? That is if it really is essential... Will. Will's point was my viewpoint.>From what I read the rules stipulated minimum weight during event, they did not specify 'dry weight' after the event. But obviously, the powers and the process have decided differently. So it goes. What they are effectively doing, therefore, is including this> > fuel as ballast. They claim they think this is legal. It clearly isn't. Clear? I do not think the rules were clear. I agree the 'final' ruling is clear. But I also remember the Tyrell 'travesty' of justice.
		Add comment


A425couple 6 May 2005 21:50:06 [ permanent link ]
	"a425couple" <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote in message> Clear?> I do not think the rules were clear.> I agree the 'final' ruling is clear.> But I also remember the Tyrell 'travesty' of justice. I am sorry about brevity and unclearness of above (gotta finish up loading and pull out to tow to weekend race). There was certainly concern that the punishment against Tyrell was unduly harsh, and had more to do with his vote (which is supposed to be 'free will') than it had to do with the concerns about the team's alledged 'technical violations'. Very chilling. When the powers and majority are against you, be careful of how rules may be interpreted! "Well of course you can vote the way you want! It's just that after you vote, we may chose to draw and quarter you, then decide the vote is fradulent because it was cast by a dead man!"
		Add comment


David Betts 7 May 2005 11:50:04 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:50:05 CST, "a425couple" <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote: What they are effectively doing, therefore, is including this>> > fuel as ballast. They claim they think this is legal. It clearly isn't.> Clear?>I do not think the rules were clear.>I agree the 'final' ruling is clear.>But I also remember the Tyrell 'travesty' of justice. Everybody else seems to have understood that you can't run fuel as ballast <g>. If the rules weren't absolutely clear, BAR should have sought clarification before building the car that way. I think that was part of the ruling, wasn't it? More is coming out all the time. It seems that the FIA has pretty much known BAR was up to something since the beginning of the season. Also, iit seems BAR's own legal advisers are telling them they are lucky to have got off so lightly. David Betts (davidb@motorsport.org.uk) "In the end it's always a matter of more accelerator and less brake" - Frank Gardner British Racing Green: http://dbetts.motorsport.org.uk/brg
		Add comment


Michael 8 May 2005 17:40:02 [ permanent link ]
	Will wrote:> In article <60hj71pf6b0j5olc27gj0vfgbhordg5m52@4ax.com>, > dabetts@ntlworld.com says...> Anyhow, BAR's defence seems to be based on the fact that they don't>>run the cars underweight because the extra fuel needed for the>>collector is on board all the time. What they are effectively doing,>>therefore, is including this fuel as ballast. They claim they think>>this is legal. It clearly isn't.>> Does this not them become "essential fluids", such as coolant, > lubricating oil etc.? That is if it really is essential...> no, reading their pdf downloaded from their website, they include the rules, which states the car must not weigh less than x kg during the event, and the event is defined as qualifying or racing. They also say to weigh the car they may require a flying lap , stop the car and weigh Removing the fuel would mean the car could not be used in the event, nor could it do the flying lap. regardless of opinion, Bars document makes good reading....
		Add comment


Andreas Davour 9 May 2005 01:10:17 [ permanent link ]
	David Betts <dabetts@ntlworld.com> writes: On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:50:05 CST, "a425couple"> <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:> What they are effectively doing, therefore, is including this> >> > fuel as ballast. They claim they think this is legal. It clearly isn't.> > Clear?> >I do not think the rules were clear.> >I agree the 'final' ruling is clear.> >But I also remember the Tyrell 'travesty' of justice.> Everybody else seems to have understood that you can't run fuel as> ballast <g>. If the rules weren't absolutely clear, BAR should have> sought clarification before building the car that way. I think that> was part of the ruling, wasn't it?> More is coming out all the time. It seems that the FIA has pretty much> known BAR was up to something since the beginning of the season. Also,> iit seems BAR's own legal advisers are telling them they are lucky to> have got off so lightly. But, there's one thing I don't get. As you say, FIA has known BAR was up tom something. Why on earth haven't they made any move to clear or confirm? Did they have to wait for BAR to score some points so it would look more spectacular? I don't get it. /andreas -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
		Add comment


Alessio Bragadini 9 May 2005 02:50:01 [ permanent link ]
	On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 15:10 -0600, Andreas Davour wrote: Did they have to wait for BAR to score some points so it would> look more spectacular? Likely, IMHO. -- Alessio Bragadini <alessio@sevenseas.org> Yet Another Usenet Node
		Add comment

CarGuru > Formula-1 > Extra fuel tank? 9 May 2005 02:50:01

	see also: Chrysler-Dodge 2005 manuals REQ: 2006… Chrysler-Dodge 2005 manuals REQ: 2006… Chrysler-Dodge 2005 manuals REQ: 2006…		pass tests:		see also: help replace right front turn bulb in a 1995… 87 toytoa pickup, cant find the…

Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

Extra fuel tank?

Add new comment