The Official 2018 German Grand Prix Thread **SPOILERS**
Discussion
kambites said:
Oilchange said:
Apparently they're upping the rev limit to 18,000 rpm to address the noise issue and getting rid of MGU-H to simplify the
hybrid-ness of it all.
Progress I suppose
I was under the impression that none of the engines rev as high as the current limit anyway? hybrid-ness of it all.
Progress I suppose
mattyn1 said:
majordad said:
I noticed on that the upshifts as shown on the Halos last weekend happened about 11500-12,000 revs. Pretty low, a Honda R road car is close to that.
every single hire car does that! 
Usually more maxed out at 6500rpm in 2nd gear at 30mph because it's a 1.2l going up an alpine road,
BTW did anyone notice how amazing (I can't believe I'm saying this) the factory Renaults sound?
Here's an example
https://youtu.be/k5x4OrsiImY?t=1m42s
Not sure if it's just a specific way the mic was setup but the noises are very interesting, especially the (gearbox?) whine.
Here's an example
https://youtu.be/k5x4OrsiImY?t=1m42s
Not sure if it's just a specific way the mic was setup but the noises are very interesting, especially the (gearbox?) whine.
Deesee said:
Seek said:
Dr Z said:
Also, anything that involves the battery has a bottleneck, so I don't quite follow how the twin battery setup can yield more deployment if at the end, the energy had to be deployed from the battery.
A twin battery setup could be used in the following unsporting manner.Battery 2 is used solely for 'powering' the MGU-H, which then directly or indirectly reroutes power to MGU-K.
This would not be limited by the regulations for energy transfer other than the minimum/maximum state of charge of 4MJ.
The energy flow from ES -> MGU-H could be routed to anywhere in MGU-H, pressure charging system or engine to be 'regenerated' and then routed to MGU-K.
If one were cynical it could be claimed that battery 2 is in fact part of MGU-H and fed by battery 1, thereby sidestepping the regulations on minimum/maximum state of charge of battery 2 and energy transfer from ES -> MGU-K.
Vettels Ferrari seems to pull away at 250kph + according to the Merc/red bull GPS. If they have found a way to retain excess MGU h in the engine management once the ES is full and deliver the excess on demand, but apparently it’s just not stored “anywhere”.
Satisfying the 4Mj SOC regulation is straight forward, no? I missed that the flow pathway from ES>H>K is unlimited as well.
This pathway is unlimited:
Pressure charging system>MGU-H>ES>MGU-H>MGU-K.
hairyben said:
Dr Z said:
Surprised that you guys think they're both the same scenario.
Vettel was comfortably ahead in the race after qualifying ahead of Kimi. It's not uncommon to request that sister cars to run their own 'optimum' race.
Merc had to stack a lot of calls in Hamilton's favour to get him ahead of Bottas, then to ask him to not attack at the final sprint is a bit rich, but understandable from the WDC perspective. The irony won't be lost on me next time Hamilton has the holier than thou attitude to Ferrari tactics.
Good drive from Hamilton, he made the strategy work but I found James' call to Bottas quite interesting after his grovelling to Hamilton at Austria for the strategy f
k up. Perhaps the team felt they owed Hamilton a win.
when has Lewis been holier than thou about ferrari?Vettel was comfortably ahead in the race after qualifying ahead of Kimi. It's not uncommon to request that sister cars to run their own 'optimum' race.
Merc had to stack a lot of calls in Hamilton's favour to get him ahead of Bottas, then to ask him to not attack at the final sprint is a bit rich, but understandable from the WDC perspective. The irony won't be lost on me next time Hamilton has the holier than thou attitude to Ferrari tactics.
Good drive from Hamilton, he made the strategy work but I found James' call to Bottas quite interesting after his grovelling to Hamilton at Austria for the strategy f
k up. Perhaps the team felt they owed Hamilton a win.TBH the more you look at it the more this isn't a cut'n'dried favouring of Lewis anyway, like many have said a "bring both cars home" order at late and risky stage of the race is something many teams have done in the past with no agenda but preserving positions.
hairyben said:
Dr Z, do you any examples of Lewis ever being critical of ferrari "tactics"?
TBH the more you look at it the more this isn't a cut'n'dried favouring of Lewis anyway, like many have said a "bring both cars home" order at late and risky stage of the race is something many teams have done in the past with no agenda but preserving positions.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/19485176/sebastian-vettel-clearly-ferrari-no1-driverTBH the more you look at it the more this isn't a cut'n'dried favouring of Lewis anyway, like many have said a "bring both cars home" order at late and risky stage of the race is something many teams have done in the past with no agenda but preserving positions.
This is one example. Think back to Austria 2016. It's standard practice to do something different with a car that's starting out of position on a faster strategy to make progress. At Austria 2016 it was Nico who made progress. Perhaps a bit too much progress as he found himself in the lead. They let them race then rather than freezing the positions.
I don't find it a big issue except when one side portrays themselves as doing the noble thing.
Dr Z said:
hairyben said:
Dr Z, do you any examples of Lewis ever being critical of ferrari "tactics"?
TBH the more you look at it the more this isn't a cut'n'dried favouring of Lewis anyway, like many have said a "bring both cars home" order at late and risky stage of the race is something many teams have done in the past with no agenda but preserving positions.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/19485176/sebastian-vettel-clearly-ferrari-no1-driverTBH the more you look at it the more this isn't a cut'n'dried favouring of Lewis anyway, like many have said a "bring both cars home" order at late and risky stage of the race is something many teams have done in the past with no agenda but preserving positions.
This is one example. Think back to Austria 2016. It's standard practice to do something different with a car that's starting out of position on a faster strategy to make progress. At Austria 2016 it was Nico who made progress. Perhaps a bit too much progress as he found himself in the lead. They let them race then rather than freezing the positions.
I don't find it a big issue except when one side portrays themselves as doing the noble thing.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff