1979 Mercedes-benz 450sel 6.9 Sedan 4-door 6.8l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why all of this year's F1 noses are so ugly [w/video]

If you're a serious fan of Formula One, you already know all about The Great Nosecone Conundrum of 2014. Those given to parsing each year's F1 regulations predicted the strong possibility of the so-called "anteater" noses as far back as early December 2013. Highly suggestive visual evidence first came after Caterham's crash test in early January, with further proof coming as soon as Williams showed a rendering of the FW36 challenger for this year's championship. That car earned a name that wasn't nearly so kind as "anteater."
Casual followers of the sport - or anyone who gets the feed from this site - probably don't know what's happening, except to wonder why the current year's F1 cars are led by appendages that would make Cyrano de Bergerac feel a whole lot better about himself.
The short answer to the question of ugsome F1 noses is "FIA regulations and safety." The reason there are various kinds of ugsome noses is simpler: engineers. The same boffins who have given us advances including carbon fiber monocoques, six-wheeled cars, double diffusers and Drag Reduction Systems are bred to do everything in their power to exploit every possible freedom in the regulations to make the cars they're building go faster - the caveat being that those advances have to work within the overall philosophy of the whole car.

Rosberg survives the Mexican mess | 2016 Mexican Grand Prix recap

Roughly ten messy laps defined the Mexican Grand Prix – five laps at the start and five at the end. Those laps included a couple of actual wrecks and a few more near wrecks that turned the entire day into chaos. To have any chance of winning the 2016 Driver's Championship, Lewis Hamilton needed to get his Mercedes-AMG Petronas across the finish line ahead of teammate Nico Rosberg. Once again we got a weekend full of vintage Hamilton, the Brit dominating the from Friday to Sunday, except for the first corner of the first lap. Pole-sitter Hamilton reached Turn 1 clearly in front of the field. But he couldn't make the corner and stay on track, so he zipped into the runoff area and over the grass, rejoining at Turn 3 still ahead of the field. The stewards didn't penalize Hamilton, one commentator's explanation being that Hamilton "was not battling another car." The non-action left car #44 to enjoy a lights-to-flag win. At that very same corner, Rosberg also availed himself of the runoff area. His infraction seemed destined to incur a penalty until replays showed that Max Verstappen in the Red Bull slid wide and bumped Rosberg, causing the German to go off track. No penalties were handed out there, either. Verstappen would return to hound Rosberg later in the race when angling for second place. Verstappen took a stab through Turn 4 on Lap 50 of the 71-lap race, but ran off the track and lost touch with the Mercedes by Lap 55. Ferrari got half of its strategy right in Mexico, putting Sebastian Vettel hard on the charge in the final stint. The German got within DRS range of Verstappen on Lap 67, with Red Bull's Daniel Ricciardo a little more than a second behind Vettel. On Lap 68, Verstappen pulled the same move as Hamilton at the beginning of the race: the Dutchman ran wide through Turn 1, zoomed over the grass and rejoined the track at Turn 3, staying ahead of Vettel the whole time. With three laps remaining, the stewards chose to investigate after the race. In spite of Verstappen's own team telling he probably needed to cede position to Vettel, Verstappen stayed in front and slowed just enough to put Vettel under threat from Ricciardo. On Lap 70 Ricciardo had closed up to Vettel's gearbox. Headed for Turn 4, Vettel swung outside to take the corner. When Ricciardo moved inside to pass, Vettel moved inside to block the Aussie while both cars were in the braking zone. The Ferrari made light contact with the Red Bull, but Vettel held his position through Turn 5.

Why it's difficult to accurately test the efficiency of a plug-in car

When it comes to electric vehicles and plug-ins in general, the Environmental Protection Agency-certified range is a hugely important number. While actual range anxiety is largely psychological, the magic number does provide a point of comparison of buyers considering one EV over another. The driving distance is also often touted by automakers when marketing their models. Unfortunately, as Green Car Reports finds in a recent deep dive, the way the EPA calculates the figure is a convoluted mess, and discovering the reasons why is definitely worth the read. The issue isn't about bad science but instead comes down to vague wording. The EPA's accepted range test is sourced from an evaluation called J-1634 from the Society of Automotive Engineers, and it seems to provide balanced results for vehicles that automatically reach a single state of charge when plugged in. However for models with multiple charge settings, the situation gets complicated very quickly. Of course, these modes are often created in the software, meaning that a car's certified driving distance can change with just a few taps of the keyboard without the real world results owners might experience actually changing. By showing the test's effects on the certified range for the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf and Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive over the last few years, Green Car Reports makes a compelling argument that it's the evaluation that needs to change. Thankfully, it appears that the solution is a very simple one. Get the details here.