I'll tell you why this is wrong, or at the very least the effect of what you're proposed is so small in reality it almost makes no sense to debate it, or maybe it's even backwards from what you suggested. Fortnunately for us we've had a perfect demonstration back in 2014 when williams ran super short gearing and mercedess ran super long gearing.hurril wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:36 pmNo anything about the RPM chart is not flawed just because. More RPM produces more gass volume which might be beneficial for the MGU-h. What if they run the turbine with more wastegate to reduce backpressure because that will produce more crankshaft output and compensate the loss of regeneration somewhat with some more RPM. We don't know any of this so let's not get all macho over what is semantic and what isn't.Juzh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:57 pmCharts and all that is great, but anything regarding RPM in that analysis is flawed and should not be taken seriously, as it the whole thing about tyre saving trouhgout the lap. All it matters is you keep the engine in the operating window of max fuel flow (10.5k+ rpm), everything else is arguing semantics really. 6 years running now and still people cling onto the old NA engines philosophy of more RPM is always better. Even then rpm weren't be all and end all, 2006 20k cosworth anybody?henry wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:47 am
Very interesting post. Lots of time lost under braking. Driver? Aero? Chassis?
I think the statement “The RPM of the Honda PU is also significantly and quite consistently lower than that of the Mercedes PU so Honda still appears to have a good amount of work to do“ is the exact opposite of how things are. If Honda can make power at lower RPM that’s good not bad. More revs good is not the way to go with these PU. IMHO.
As for the time lost under braking, it makes sense you have to brake earlier when you're down of DF levels, it's just the way it it goes. mercedes was simply the best car in melbourne and it wasn't even close, not even with red bull.
I also think that, while honda did make signifficant progress one way or another, red bull and in particular TR cutting down on DF flattered them on the straights to a degree on that track. RB basically made a 180 U turn, they went from absolutely being the best in high speed section T11-12 last year, to now being behind merc, ferrari, haas maybe even alfa romeo. Yes, other aspects of their chassis still made them far superior compared to most of those cars, but in terms of pure aero performance they were far down from what is ussually the case.
Williams revs from 10400-11800 rpm
mercedes revs from 10800-12600 rpm
Clearly significant difference in the way engine operating window was used, which both netted a nearly identical performance in the end on most tracks.
Because 2014 williams was inherently less draggy car compared to mercedes I chose monaco for a quick example of achieved speeds - all cars on max downforce possible and the speeds are too low to be influenced by drag:
https://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula- ... sification
QUALIFYING - SPEED TRAP
Speeds at the speed trap after tunnel exit:
1 Valtteri Bottas Williams Martini Racing 292.0
2 Nico Rosberg Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team 290.9
3 Felipe Massa Williams Martini Racing 290.1
4 Lewis Hamilton Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team 290.0
Speeds at the start/finish line:
V. Bottas 274.3
F. Massa 274.1
N. Rosberg 274.0
L. Hamilton 271.6
After monza, mercedes switched to williams style, suggesting lower operating window was preffered.
All in all I don't believe honda running their PU at lower RPM is a detriment of any kind.