Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[godlameroso]

Renault's engine is closer to Mercedes than it is to Honda.

[techman]

[quote][Post28 Jul 2016, 09:04

Renault's engine is closer to Mercedes than it is to Honda/quote]

Can I know which team u r comparing to mclaren . Its definitely redbull , isn't it, but do you realise that redbull chassis is the most aero efficient chassis in F1 today .that redbull is an evolution from its predecessors while mclaren size zero is a still to mature concept.its needs more time to reap it full potential. Why are u not comparing Renault team to mclaren , it's their works team and as u can see even the top speeds of mclaren are better than that of Renault team and recenttimes.
As far as someone mentioned mclaren low drag philosophy, it's s joke mclaren ran , a double monkey wing in Monaco because it does hurt to add downforce because it's not a power circuit yet mclaren struggle for pace. Even William techincal director mention mention prior to Monaco they will run extreme down five whoever they still struggle with a Mercedes engine , it's show that power is not as important in Monaco like compared to monza . A good balannce chassis . With good efficient downforce and mechanical grip is vital in Monaco but neither William nor mclaren had it. Anyway next year we will find out which engine are the strongest when are tested ? So it will be clear where the blame game will be directed. Personally Honda and Renault are equal in performance , it's the redbull efficiency chassis that make the difference

[trinidefender]

[Post28 Jul 2016, 09:04

Renault's engine is closer to Mercedes than it is to Honda/quote]

Can I know which team u r comparing to mclaren . Its definitely redbull , isn't it, but do you realise that redbull chassis is the most aero efficient chassis in F1 today .that redbull is an evolution from its predecessors while mclaren size zero is a still to mature concept.its needs more time to reap it full potential. Why are u not comparing Renault team to mclaren , it's their works team and as u can see even the top speeds of mclaren are better than that of Renault team and recenttimes.
As far as someone mentioned mclaren low drag philosophy, it's s joke mclaren ran , a double monkey wing in Monaco because it does hurt to add downforce because it's not a power circuit yet mclaren struggle for pace. Even William techincal director mention mention prior to Monaco they will run extreme down five whoever they still struggle with a Mercedes engine , it's show that power is not as important in Monaco like compared to monza . A good balannce chassis . With good efficient downforce and mechanical grip is vital in Monaco but neither William nor mclaren had it. Anyway next year we will find out which engine are the strongest when are tested ? So it will be clear where the blame game will be directed. Personally Honda and Renault are equal in performance , it's the redbull efficiency chassis that make the difference

The problem in Monaco was that McLaren couldn't get the tyres working for them. If the tyres are outside their operating temperature/pressure range then no amount of downforce will help (assuming of course additional downforce doesn't put the tyres to their correct temperature).

It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Aero is not as big a factor in Monaco as other tracks, good traction and getting the tyres to work is the real key to quick lap times.

[amho]

Yes, Mclaren lacks mechanical grip this was obvious in Monaco but it seems that the car has decent aero package but still not comparable to top teams, there were lapped in Hungary which is not a power circuit

[Thunder]

So is that new Fuel for Spa, Engine Upgrade for Spa if ready, if not Monza?
https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 3527304192

[mrluke]

The problem in Monaco was that McLaren couldn't get the tyres working for them. If the tyres are outside their operating temperature/pressure range then no amount of downforce will help (assuming of course additional downforce doesn't put the tyres to their correct temperature).

It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Aero is not as big a factor in Monaco as other tracks, good traction and getting the tyres to work is the real key to quick lap times.

And the massive hole in that statement is that fundamental purpose of the "chassis" is to get the most out of the tyres.

Mclaren blame the PU if its a low downforce track and blame the tyres if its a high downforce track.

In reality Mclaren have a fairly average chassis with a fairly average PU and an exceptional driver.

[SameSame]

The problem in Monaco was that McLaren couldn't get the tyres working for them. If the tyres are outside their operating temperature/pressure range then no amount of downforce will help (assuming of course additional downforce doesn't put the tyres to their correct temperature).

It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Aero is not as big a factor in Monaco as other tracks, good traction and getting the tyres to work is the real key to quick lap times.

And the massive hole in that statement is that fundamental purpose of the "chassis" is to get the most out of the tyres.

Mclaren blame the PU if its a low downforce track and blame the tyres if its a high downforce track.

In reality Mclaren have a fairly average chassis with a fairly average PU and an exceptional driver.

So true. Things are improving but they should stop blaming other factors. They make it sound like a battle between them versus Honda of who is the weakest link.

[Pierce89]

The problem in Monaco was that McLaren couldn't get the tyres working for them. If the tyres are outside their operating temperature/pressure range then no amount of downforce will help (assuming of course additional downforce doesn't put the tyres to their correct temperature).

It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Aero is not as big a factor in Monaco as other tracks, good traction and getting the tyres to work is the real key to quick lap times.

And the massive hole in that statement is that fundamental purpose of the "chassis" is to get the most out of the tyres.

Mclaren blame the PU if its a low downforce track and blame the tyres if its a high downforce track.

In reality Mclaren have a fairly average chassis with a fairly average PU and an exceptional driver.

That would be true if Mclaren wasn't quoted as running the same low drag setup they run everywhere else. Unfortunately for your statement, they did that very thing. I don't know about you, but when a package is developed to mask a power deficit.at tracks such as Bahrain,Austria,Canada etc. ,I don't expect it to work great at Monaco, yet Alonso finished 5th.

[hollus]

Sí, Thunders, that is exactly what it says.

[loner]

Albert Fabrega ES ‏@AlbertFabrega 4m4 minutes ago View translation
Honda está preparando otra evolución con tokens para las últimas carreras d la temporada en el ERS. En Spa/Monza llega la d potencia motor
Translated from Spanish by Bing Wrong translation?
Honda is preparing another evolution with tokens for the last races d season in ERS. In Spa / Monza reaches it d power engine

if i understand correctly the maximum power from ICE will be with upgrade of spa or monza but there will be another upgrade to ERS in the last races and iam near sure he mean suzuka gp

[godlameroso]

Curious that it's an ERS upgrade, maybe a new battery pack? I know there's a new generation of Li-ion batteries coming to market very soon. It's 2 tokens to change the cells, 2 tokens for the battery management systems, and another token for the wiring loom, so that upgrade can be anywhere from 2 to 4 or 5 tokens. I'm guessing the BMS also includes the inverters? That leaves 5-8 tokens for the engine. It's 3 tokens for a combustion upgrade and that's a given, I'm willing to bet they spend another 2 on the fuel system, that's 5, leaving 3 I'm guessing for miscellaneous things(probably the most challenging decision of all for them).

[GoranF1]

SPA it is....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... pa--button

[Sasha]

SPA it is....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... pa--button

Maybe if it pass it's mileage test on the rig.Honda will have CVCC again!

[godlameroso]

If they spend 5-6 tokens, I'll know exactly what they did.

[mrluke]

The problem in Monaco was that McLaren couldn't get the tyres working for them. If the tyres are outside their operating temperature/pressure range then no amount of downforce will help (assuming of course additional downforce doesn't put the tyres to their correct temperature).

It really isn't a hard concept to understand. Aero is not as big a factor in Monaco as other tracks, good traction and getting the tyres to work is the real key to quick lap times.

And the massive hole in that statement is that fundamental purpose of the "chassis" is to get the most out of the tyres.

Mclaren blame the PU if its a low downforce track and blame the tyres if its a high downforce track.

In reality Mclaren have a fairly average chassis with a fairly average PU and an exceptional driver.

That would be true if Mclaren wasn't quoted as running the same low drag setup they run everywhere else. Unfortunately for your statement, they did that very thing. I don't know about you, but when a package is developed to mask a power deficit.at tracks such as Bahrain,Austria,Canada etc. ,I don't expect it to work great at Monaco, yet Alonso finished 5th.

They aren't though.

Mclaren ran their max downforce setup in Canada.

Mclaren are not running less rear wing than any of the other mid grid teams, in fact they are running more than some, check the pictures of Baku for evidence.

The only reason they finished 5th in Monaco is because everybody else fell off of the road. Ill remind you that on the track that is the least dependent on power and places the most emphasis on chassis, Mclaren were 2 seconds behind RBR in qualy.

Here's a prediction for you, Mclaren's qualy laptime at Monza will be closer to RBR than it was at Monaco. Im going to add that to my signature and you can call me out on it later in the year.