and honda pu its 160hp down from others.....very good job
![d'oh! #-o](./images/smilies/eusa_doh.gif)
![d'oh! #-o](./images/smilies/eusa_doh.gif)
![d'oh! #-o](./images/smilies/eusa_doh.gif)
I really don't get it ( sorry for my ignorance), but how can someone know that you have a power and efficiency , when track testing shows quite the opposite, and if you have -in comparison to who?Wazari wrote:
The current PU overall I think is very good and I am excited about it...
So I hope this PU can be exploited to its full potential. The power is there, the efficiency is there and as usual, reliability is the big question mark because mainly of what I have mentioned before. ..
if you believe they dont, if you believe in honesty in F1, IF you believe they wouldnt do ANYTHING to win, you live in a fairy tale.Facts Only wrote:Where do you get this from? Source or evidence? None because it's BSGoranF1 wrote:Until Honda continue to refuse mule car for testing situation will stay the same.
Renault,Mercedes and Ferrari use mule cars.
so are you telling me lap time corrected Mclaren has 3rd best chassis?ollandos wrote:The electrial problems are being caused by the PU vibrations. According to the Sky testing recap tonight.
and honda pu its 160hp down from others.....very good job![]()
![]()
skoop wrote:Hasn't the whole mule car thing been banned? Or is there a gentlemans agreement not to use them? I thought there was something like that.
Jeah, I know about that. In my opinion the ban / agreemanet came after the season began in 2014. I'll try to find something on thisGoranF1 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od3H6Jxisfkskoop wrote:Hasn't the whole mule car thing been banned? Or is there a gentlemans agreement not to use them? I thought there was something like that.
(Paddy Lowe, 2014, Source: http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/V6-m ... 47790.html)“There have been a lot of discussions about whether we might make what is called a mule car to run the new engine next year,” said Lowe. “It’s very expensive to make a mule car, especially when we have other programmes running as well. Not just expensive in money but in terms of the people you need to design it.
“Most of the teams are agreeing that we will not have mule cars. The regulations wouldn’t currently make a mule car of any benefit anyway but we’re not agreeing to introduce any new test sessions that would use mule cars. So then the question is: can we enter a new season with a new power unit, without that track testing?”
I know about that but i think( have zero evidence) that they still secretly use and test new engines in them.skoop wrote:Jeah, I know about that. In my opinion the ban / agreemanet came after the season began in 2014. I'll try to find something on thisGoranF1 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od3H6Jxisfkskoop wrote:Hasn't the whole mule car thing been banned? Or is there a gentlemans agreement not to use them? I thought there was something like that.
Edit: This article hints in the direction I'm thinking:
(Paddy Lowe, 2014, Source: http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/V6-m ... 47790.html)“There have been a lot of discussions about whether we might make what is called a mule car to run the new engine next year,” said Lowe. “It’s very expensive to make a mule car, especially when we have other programmes running as well. Not just expensive in money but in terms of the people you need to design it.
“Most of the teams are agreeing that we will not have mule cars. The regulations wouldn’t currently make a mule car of any benefit anyway but we’re not agreeing to introduce any new test sessions that would use mule cars. So then the question is: can we enter a new season with a new power unit, without that track testing?”
The team which obviously didn't agree to that is Ferrari.
Like I said, I'm not sure of this and I could be totally wrong about this
A packaging problem, where electrical parts are hotwired by vibration due to tightness?ollandos wrote:The electrial problems are being caused by the PU vibrations. According to the Sky testing recap tonight.
and honda pu its 160hp down from others.....very good job![]()
![]()
these crankshafts have dampers to reduce torsional vibration but will still be twisting through about +0.25 deg to -0.25 deg about 200 times per secondollandos wrote:The electrial problems are being caused by the PU vibrations. According to the Sky testing recap tonight.....
That's something I'd like to know more about mate !Tommy Cookers wrote:these crankshafts have dampers to reduce torsional vibration but will still be twisting through about +0.25 deg to -0.25 deg about 200 times per secondollandos wrote:The electrial problems are being caused by the PU vibrations. According to the Sky testing recap tonight.....
generating high stresses that would cause fatigue failure after maybe 200 hours
the mechanical effects due to the MGU-K (geared to the crankshaft) will be integrated into the crankshaft/damper system by design
but the MGU-K is presumably exposed to (some of) the crankshaft's torsional vibration
this vibration is presumably causing some kind of vibratory stress damage/fretting to the electrical insulation of conductors in the rotating parts
Wazari-san: I think a week back you mentioned that everyone at Honda was happy with what they saw and this weeks its been the exact opposite. Hasegawa-san has openly admitted that he is worried that the gap to rivals would have increased this year.Wazari wrote: So I hope this PU can be exploited to its full potential. The power is there, the efficiency is there and as usual, reliability is the big question mark because mainly of what I have mentioned before. This of course has caused friction between us and McLaren and it is a very, very difficult partnership. I don’t know what the future lies but I know we have put tremendous effort into this PU. Almost everything is new. This is what IMO we should have built for 2015. Things will break. The latest failure was a valve-train issue stemming from an electrical problem. This is a problem that is being addressed currently and I think should be resolved before Melbourne.
What do you think about dynoalexa wrote:I really don't get it ( sorry for my ignorance), but how can someone know that you have a power and efficiency , when track testing shows quite the opposite, and if you have -in comparison to who?Wazari wrote:
The current PU overall I think is very good and I am excited about it...
So I hope this PU can be exploited to its full potential. The power is there, the efficiency is there and as usual, reliability is the big question mark because mainly of what I have mentioned before. ..