NASCAR
Organisers at the Monaco Grand Prix are facing a race against time after a truck caught fire on the track yesterday and damaged part of the track.
The small lorry was parked on the braking zone for turn one, Ste-Devote, and caught fire while workers were making minor repairs to the track.
Now workers have had to turn their attentions to fixing the damage, which has been described as major.
Former F1 driver and BBC commentator Martin Brundle posted a picture of the incident on his Twitter feed, and said: “Pick-up truck caught fire and burned brand new Tarmac at turn in point to Monaco St Devote, first corner. Urgent repairs”
The hope is that the track will be dry and ready for the first practice session this Thursday.
Source:
In 1996, designers at the then Chrysler Corporation made a startling revelation: Providing rear side doors on
both sides of a van enhances its usefulness. In terms of its impact on Western civilization, this breakthrough innovation ranks somewhat behind the invention of television but ahead of the Popeil Pocket Fisherman and the Clapper.
What’s even more startling is that it took another seven years—and another corporation—to apply this principle to full-size vans; this van, for example—the Chevy Express—as well as its Professional Grade (and essentially identical) counterpart from GMC Truck, the GMC Savana. Both the Express and the Savana offer a driver’s-side rear-door option for 2003—or, to be more accurate, doors: a pair of them, side-hinged portals that open clamshell fashion from the middle, 60/40, just like the pair on the opposite side of the vehicle. No sliding doors here.
It’s amazing how much this innovation—a first in full-size vans—improves access to the interior. Which makes it even more amazing that no one’s done it before. But then people probably said the same thing about the Hula Hoop.
The left-side-door option isn’t the only improvement to the Express and Savana. GM’s big vans have new (and, of course, stiffer) three-piece box-section frames, updated editions of GM’s Vortec V-8 truck engines, a four-wheel-drive option, all-disc brake systems with anti-lock brakes as standard equipment, upgraded interiors, an OnStar option, and a modest face lift, to hit the highlights.
We decided to put one of the ’03 vans—a regular-wheelbase (135.0 inches versus 155.0 inches for the long, rear-drive-only version) 1500-series Express with all-wheel drive and, of course, the extra set of side doors—through its paces. The exercise consisted of a trip to the test track, a little local hauling, and then putting the van to work for a Sports Car Club of America race weekend.
Track-test results were acceptable but not extraordinary. Powered by GM’s 5300 Vortec V-8 (5.3 liters, 285 horsepower, 325 pound-feet of torque), the Express propelled its 5820 pounds to 60 mph in 8.7 seconds and through the quarter-mile—where the small-barn aerodynamics of a van really begin to assert themselves—in 16.7 seconds at 83 mph.
Similarly, considering the system upgrades, braking performance was rather ordinary—214 feet from 70 mph to a standstill, although we were favorably impressed by the improved pedal feel versus that of the previous Express, as well as the system’s resistance to fade.
On the road, however, with about 5000 pounds of trailer and race car hooked up, it was a different story. The Vortec V-8 handled the trailer easily, with enough snort left over for passing on two-lane highways. And the four-wheel-drive system was particularly helpful in a rain-soaked grass paddock.
The four-wheel-drive system isn’t like the hard-core setups offered on Chevy pickups. The major component is the full-time transfer case that employs a center differential with viscous limited slip. This isn’t nearly as effective as systems with locking differentials. But it’s better than the conventional rear-drive approach, and it did make a difference when we were extracting a loaded trailer from that slippery paddock—while around us others were slippin’ and slidin’.
Like Ford’s E-series vans, the Express and the Savana come in a variety of sizes, payload ratings, and seating configurations, from pure cargo haulers to 15-passenger church specials. Our sample van had three rows of seats, which still left plenty of space for racing cargo, including two sets of spare wheels, a toolbox, a floor jack, jack stands, a cooler, chairs, and an air tank.
Ford has pretty much owned the full-size-van market, and the van-conversion business, for a long time, thanks largely to its superior chassis. General Motors has been the longtime runner-up, but a distant runner-up.
Judging by this new Express, we’d say that gap is going to shrink. A lot.
Article source: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/03q2/chevy_express_awd-short_take_road_test
Following extensive research—otherwise known as "Google"—we’ve determined that the world’s largest tree, according to the U.S. National Park Service, is the General Sherman, a sequoia in California’s Sequoia National Park.
This is a bit unfortunate, as we were hoping to help Toyota find a new name for its largest SUV, the all-new 2008 Sequoia, which is so big that keeping the Sequoia name seems slightly modest. But if the Sequoia is already the largest tree, then it looks like we, and Toyota, are stuck with it.
You already know why the second-generation Sequoia (a mild freshening in 2005 doesn’t qualify as a "generation") is so big: The vehicle platform it’s based on, the
, is huge, so it stands to reason the new Sequoia would be, too. The wheelbase, at 122.0 inches, is up 3.9 inches; length, at 205.1 inches, is up 1.2 inches. It’s also an inch wider and half an inch taller. Unlike the Tundra, the Sequoia has a fully boxed frame.
The biggest news is under the hood, though. Previously, the best we could do in the Sequoia was the standard 273-hp, 4.7-liter V-8 and five-speed automatic transmission. That powertrain remains, but it’s supplemented by the Tundra’s beefy 381-hp, 5.7-liter V-8 with a six-speed automatic. The Sequoia can now tow a maximum of 10,000 pounds, up from 6500.
Why Two Big SUVs?
The 2008 Sequoia is offered in three basic flavors: the base SR5, the Limited—previously the premium model, now midlevel—and the absolutely loaded Platinum. The presence of the Platinum made us wonder why Toyota needed that model as well as the newly refreshed, Japanese-built
, and the answer is that they seem to appeal to two separate markets: Land Cruiser buyers have an average household income of $237,000; Sequoia buyers average "only" $106,000.
Toyota figures that 55 percent of 2008 Sequoia sales will be the SR5, 35 percent the Limited, and just 10 percent the Platinum. Rear- and four-wheel-drive sales should be split evenly. And Toyota has high expectations for the 5.7-liter V-8, figuring it will account for 90 percent of the product mix. One reason: It actually gets better fuel mileage than the 4.7. Neither will get kudos from the Sierra Club, though: EPA estimates for the four-wheel-drive models are 13 mpg city and 16 highway for the 4.7, and 13 and 18 for the 5.7. We averaged 12 mpg, which included some light towing.
The engines do, after all, have their work cut out for them. The four-wheel-drive Platinum we tested weighed in at a substantial 6100 pounds, about 300 pounds heavier than the rear-wheel-drive SR5. But the Platinum is no slouch: We logged a 0-to-60-mph time of 6.6 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 15.2 seconds at 92 mph. The Sequoia stops, too, thanks largely to huge 13.9-inch vented rotors up front and 13.6-inchers in the back: 70 mph to 0 took 184 feet. Not much that technology or the front-and-rear unequal-length control-arm suspension can do to help all that mass on the skidpad, as the Platinum registered a 20-inch-tire-moaning 0.73 g, inhibited by its undefeatable stability control.
Article source: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/07q4/2008_toyota_sequoia_platinum_4wd-short_take_road_test