F1technical.net

wuzak wrote:Slightly disappointed that it is there. But it is likely there in case someone did indeed figure they could build a smaller, lighter engine with the same performance.

I believe a reduced displacement version might actually have higher performance due to lower friction.

George-Jung wrote:

And as far as spying on Mercedes, do you REALLY believe that McLaren, the team that was fined $100M for "cheating" a while back, didn't put a borescope down into the engine? Ultrasound? Fuel consumption? Turbo design? Honda had access to all of these things. They probably even had a good idea of what kind of power they needed to make to be competitive too.

..
Do you really think Mercedes would have not been keeping a close watch on McLaren ? In light of what's gone on before ?
..

Wasn't the team back than McLaren Mercedes.. which means that Mercedes got fined too for spying? Therefor saying that Mercedes needed to keep an eye on McLaren sounds a bit strange? Or am I completely wrong?

I'm drifting far off topic, but there was some suggestion Brackley (during the Honda period) were indirectly involved as a potential beneficiary of the data (but cleared of being offered or receiving any data), with Stepney and Cloughan meeting up with Nick Fry. The speculation that they may have been moving there & that they may have intended to use the Ferrari data to help their new team if they got the job (but I stress again Honda/Brackley were cleared of being offered or receiving any data).

Brackley are now Mercedes and Honda back supplying MCL. So MCL-Merc (now Mcl-Honda) were potentially a conduit for data heading (indirectly) to HondaF1 (aka Brackley, now Mercedes) via 2 ambitious, but rouge employees of Ferrari/Mcl and the music stopped with the data in th McLaren employee's hands & MCL couldn't demonstrate they weren't involved/it was found they could have used the data (& I don't know what the actual driver evidence was).

diffuser wrote:we have 4 manufactures and 3 different ways of aligning the turbine MGU-H and compressor( I say 3 but I forget if the Renault/Ferrari are the same). So when 75% of the manufactures who have Engineers that are far better than me choose another direction......I feel that they must have given it alot of thought and come to the conclusion there isn't much of a difference or there are other advantages we haven't thought of yet that off set those negatives.

Some people think F1 engineers are stupid when they don´t understand what they´re doing, their reasoning is "I don´t understand it so it must be wrong, they´re stupid"

Some other people, a lot more inteligent if you ask me, in same situation would think "I must be missing something because this people is not stupid so there must be some reason I don´t know"


I´m glad to see you´re from the second group

A lot of overreaction in this thread.
I don't think Renault were doing as well in their second year. So far Honda has no reliability issues. Last year Renault was a mess.

Honda engine looks quite promising in speed traps during Australia race. Except in sector 2 where Button was 10 kph down on Hamilton, the other two sectors we were between 1 to 4 kph down. Bahrain will be a true test of progress made by Honda engine.

Not that bullet proof after all: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alons ... gp-682079/

Jef Patat wrote:Not that bullet proof after all: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alons ... gp-682079/

I think that was expected though. If they do clear any of those PU elements as fine they will probably reserve them for practise and maybe races with low PU demand.

Jef Patat wrote:Not that bullet proof after all: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alons ... gp-682079/

It did seem rather unlikely didn't it....

I think you're right anyway if the do need a sixth engine they can do what they did last year and get a seventh in the same race weekend. the second penalty makes no difference.

I do find it strange that in these "force majeure" circumstances, you do not get a new engine without penalty. OK, you could argue that you might deliberately crash in order to increase your engine count, but that scenario seems extremely unlikely to me.

horse wrote:you could argue that you might deliberately crash in order to increase your engine count, but that scenario seems extremely unlikely to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_F ... ontroversy

"The Renault Formula One crash controversy, dubbed Crashgate by some in the media, is a sporting scandal perpetrated by the Renault F1 team who ordered Nelson Piquet, Jr. to crash deliberately during the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, in order to gain a sporting advantage for his Renault team-mate Fernando Alonso."

damager21 wrote:Honda engine looks quite promising in speed traps during Australia race. Except in sector 2 where Button was 10 kph down on Hamilton, the other two sectors we were between 1 to 4 kph down. Bahrain will be a true test of progress made by Honda engine.

http://s8.postimg.org/slc0k81b9/Australia_Race.png

Well one the signs honda has improved is the accident alonso, i think caught him by surprise to be so closed to the haas at the end of the straight

Very interesting interview regarding fuel and oil developments from Mobil 1 for Honda PU.

I personally like this quote:

So there’s a lot of gains to be made at the moment and my crystal ball says that there’d be quite a few monre.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/03/25/f ... -catch-up/

Honda has been working on reability during winter, will now focus on performance by introducing a Mercedes style pre-chamber design.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 48499.html

Redragon wrote:

damager21 wrote:Honda engine looks quite promising in speed traps during Australia race. Except in sector 2 where Button was 10 kph down on Hamilton, the other two sectors we were between 1 to 4 kph down. Bahrain will be a true test of progress made by Honda engine.

http://s8.postimg.org/slc0k81b9/Australia_Race.png

Well one the signs honda has improved is the accident alonso, i think caught him by surprise to be so closed to the haas at the end of the straight

Because the Haas was braking earlier than Alonso expected, no doubt due to it being on older tyres.