Nickel wrote:Actually, it's been reported in a few places. AMUS reported on it as early as May.Muulka wrote:It's hilarious how people have just accepted the random reports of Red Bull having this 'VTT'. Totally unsubstantiated and I don't know why it's the subject of so much obsession.
here is a translated snippet: The driver sits in the simulator, and in an adjoining room, the car rides on wheels, including the engine, transmission and tires, as if it were on the racetrack. External influences such as temperatures can also be simulated. The lab was never so close to the race track. This is how Renault also benefits. "In Viry, they are not yet ready with the test rigs," reports team consultant Helmut Marko.
Original article (German) : http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 03249.html
The way you said it gave me the impression that there is a one way communication from the driver/car simulator to the engine on it's rolling road dyno. So in that case; of one way, or open loop communication, it would be convenient to download the data from the driver/car simulator and then use on the engine dyno at a convenient time. On the other hand, if you said to me, that it was a two way, or closed loop communication between the simulator and the rolling road dyno; where the engine was sending back information to the simulator and vice-versa, then I could easily agree with the obvious requirement of the two systems running simultaneously.Nickel wrote:easier? maybe. however doing so might simply put off the work until later. I take it the idea of the VTT is to simulate as many variables at once as they can, hence having the driver in the loop. the rolling road/dyno setup is thus simulating driver errors, habits and preferences instead of a computer programmed to simulate a lap.PlatinumZealot wrote:I'm curious. Wouldn't be easier to download the simulator log file and use it at a time and place convenient to the other party?
Other than not having to build the infrastructure to tie the two together, what do you imagine is the advantage of using the simulator log to run the test bed at a later time?
=D>erikejw wrote: Maybe Ferrari should build a roof over Fiorano , make a few modifications and call it their highly refined virtual test track
Looking at this image, my hindsight kicks in. Years on, I'm still impressed with the clever arrangement of the Mercedes PU and wonder what kept the other teams from developing a similar solution. Were they lacking in the conceptual phase i.e. did their large/well funded design teams not consider enough layout concepts? Or did they all go through this phase, perhaps all considering a Merc-type layout in the beginning, among others, and then choose to develop other options? Put simply: a failure to conceptualize? Or a failure to evaluate from a sufficient diversity of concepts? Assuming macro-scale-layout is a significant aspect of Merc's superiority.F1NAC wrote:a photo from 2014. Good view on TC-C-MGUH position
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0yC6BAWEAAlsJU.jpg:large
Perhaps Renault, like Honda, and Ferrari, underestimated the amount of boost they could run, because they did not know about the concept of TJI until after the 2014 season, but the token limit meant that they could not adapt fast enough, nor change enough. I think had the token system not have been in place at least one other manufacturer would have copied the Mercedes layout. Perhaps there are challenges that they didn't have time to solve, which Mercedes clearly did.roon wrote:Looking at this image, my hindsight kicks in. Years on, I'm still impressed with the clever arrangement of the Mercedes PU and wonder what kept the other teams from developing a similar solution. Were they lacking in the conceptual phase i.e. did their large/well funded design teams not consider enough layout concepts? Or did they all go through this phase, perhaps all considering a Merc-type layout in the beginning, among others, and then choose to develop other options? Put simply: a failure to conceptualize? Or a failure to evaluate from a sufficient diversity of concepts? Assuming macro-scale-layout is a significant aspect of Merc's superiority.F1NAC wrote:a photo from 2014. Good view on TC-C-MGUH position
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0yC6BAWEAAlsJU.jpg:large
Looks like the wastegate is just resting there momentarily. We saw it on top of the exhaust pipe in some of the older pictures.roon wrote:In that image you can see a disconnected wastegate actuator & a blowoff valve. The BOV in the lower righthand corner. The wastegate is the long stainless-steel(?) cylinder with baffles & foil, right above the mgu-h. Its intake & outlet are capped off with two white plastic caps.