F1technical.net

Sasha wrote:What I heard from HRD and my thoughts.

The past year, R&D teams have been working on different PU designs and a team working on CC/TC.

They picked the most radical design because that was going to be the only way to surpass MB in future.(2018)
(Honda and Mclaren knew this year they wasn't going to win a GP) They could of went the safe way with the TC in the rear and still be slower than MB,Ferrari and RB.

The beginning of the season could be hell, by mid-season better than last year and by end of season...knocking on the door with a chance of a win.

Joseki wrote:

Sasha wrote:What I heard from HRD and my thoughts.

The past year, R&D teams have been working on different PU designs and a team working on CC/TC.

They picked the most radical design because that was going to be the only way to surpass MB in future.(2018)
(Honda and Mclaren knew this year they wasn't going to win a GP) They could of went the safe way with the TC in the rear and still be slower than MB,Ferrari and RB.

The beginning of the season could be hell, by mid-season better than last year and by end of season...knocking on the door with a chance of a win.

Every year the same story with some details changed.

isullivan wrote:https://twitter.com/Berrageiz/status/839498877162106880

Renault same kerb
https://twitter.com/Berrageiz/status/839499939684179969

dren wrote:

RS200E wrote:

dren wrote:
Which is better than having a rather crap chassis at the start. With these new PUs, the driveability can certainly be smoothed and changed through mapping. I still don't believe all of the team's shortcomings are down to the PU. Last year the chassis was to blame for part of it, too. Remember the chassis the team designed with the Mercedes PU in 2014?

Hopefully, both parties can get things turned around after several races into the championship.

Nonsense.

Remember all the other great chassis they disigned?

Very selective memory.

Sure, they have made championship winning chassis. It's been a while.

When asked whether he was able to take Barcelona's Turn 3 flat out, Alonso also made a joke about the lack of performance.

"Oh yeah, for us, not only Turn 3," he smiled. "For us nearly all the corners are flat."

Tommy Cookers wrote:

Craigy wrote:

flexcon wrote:Here is another clip I took just now.
Whilst the sound we are familiar with sounds great like a devil, this changing gears in 5th 6th and 7th is awful!! [urlhttps://youtu.be/_RPtcv35b1U[/url]

Agreed.Crackpot theory: Honda are using the ERS-K to provide a quick torque fix to rev-match the engine to the gearbox, and that's currently failing for some control reason, meaning that the engagement is very harsh.

imo not crackpot
the K is geared to the crankshaft about 3:1 ie if unenergised its inertia substantially degrades and/or slows the shift

it is presumably energised ie continuously controlled to contribute as far as it can to emulate the ICE control for shift performance
ie momentary generator action to reduce its rpm as quickly as possible with upshift, minimising disruption in smoothness and speed of the shift
and similarly momentary motor action to increase its rpm as quickly as possible with downshift

if there was no spare energy in the ES the system would not work as intended
for this situation the fallback would be slower settings of the ICE and gearbox response to the shift demand
without the fallback (when needed) the shifts would show mechanical distress

fellowhoodlums wrote:From the McLaren twitter feed, report on the day and in it Hasegawa said..

“This progress has enabled us to gather the important data required to understand the functionality of our next spec of power unit, which was introduced for today’s testing."

So they ran the new unit today.

Redragon wrote: alonso said today was a unit different from last week but not the spec for Australia