A comparison if that's possible at all would be interesting, admittedly I didn't see who's car it was each time I saw the shots of the McLaren's, but there was definitely a note change. Do they have to advise if they change the exhaust manifolds at all?
Exhaust from engine flange to turbine inlet are part of sporting regulations appendix 4 (homologation) but are listed as excluded from technical regulations 5.22 (sealed elements) and sporting regulations 23.3 (power unit element allowance) so I believe these can be changed without advise unless it involves the breaking of a seal.
5.22 Replacing power unit parts :
Refer to the table in Appendix 2 of these regulations.
The parts listed as “EXC” in the table referred to above may be changed without incurring a
penalty under Article 23.3 of the F1 Sporting Regulations. If changing any of these parts
involves breaking a seal this may be done but must be carried out under FIA supervision. Any
parts changed may only be replaced by parts homologated in accordance with Appendix 4 of
the F1 Sporting Regulations.
23.3.e) Should a driver use more than four of any one of the elements during a Championship
season, a grid place penalty will be imposed upon him at the first Event during which
each additional element is used. Penalties will be applied according to the following
table and will be cumulative :
The first time a 5th of any of the Ten grid place penalty.
elements is used.
The first time a 5th of any of the Five grid place penalty.
remaining elements is used.
The first time a 6th of any of the Ten grid place penalty.
elements is used.
The first time a 6th of any of the Five grid place penalty.
remaining elements is used, and so on.
A power unit or any of the six elements will be deemed to have been used once the car’s
timing transponder has shown that it has left the pit lane.
During any single Event, if a driver introduces more than one of the same power unit
element which is subject to penalties, only the last element fitted may be used at
subsequent Events without further penalty.
Ah that was an inerter. You can have a torsional analogue with a flywheel coupled to a diff but you either need a big flywheel or a small highly geared one (in which case the pinion will be large..)FW17 wrote: ↑08 Apr 2017, 04:39Mudflap wrote: ↑07 Apr 2017, 21:50As in torsional rubber dampers ? They are allowed but not very useful - they can only dampen (effectively splitting the resonating mode into 2 modes with smaller amplitudes) the frequency they are tuned for.
In comparison a viscous damper will dampen any mode (provided the shear rate stays within reasonable limits) while a pendulum damper will dampen a whole order.
I meant a device similar to what was used last in f1 to dampen tyre oscillation following riding a kerb.
I guess that is similar to the pendulum.
Would a viscous coupling on drivetrain fall in the category of torque converter? Is that even possible for racing?
And Vandorne was out-qualified by two Saubers.JuanjoTS wrote: ↑08 Apr 2017, 11:29As last week I compared the best lap of Ham (or pole position) in Q3 with the best lap of Alo, last week the distance was about 3.2s, this week the difference has been 2,649s, a Improving 0.600s, as Goldmeroso says, considering that this circuit calculated that it would be worse by its characteristics, if they have taken a good step forward.
Have we been watching different Mclaren?GhostF1 wrote: ↑08 Apr 2017, 08:52Alonso seems confident with the 30+ changes under the skin to his chassis which he's been talking about.
Blokes in pitlane talking about maybe Zak and Eric are trying to pouch Andy from Merc, I mean... Honda are hiring heavily for Milton Keynes...
And history in this era tells us, McLaren are never the first to say whether or not they are confident or have made progress, they allow what happens to be seen before they comment. So yeah maybe there has been some progress. They definitely seem to be keeping their promise about constant upgrades with each GP.
This is the first time Vandoorne has driven this circuit besides the simulator, and there wasn't much running beforehand, also I'm imagining Alonso get's first dibs on new upgrades, and come on it's Alonso, also this is off topic.wuzak wrote: ↑08 Apr 2017, 13:55And Vandorne was out-qualified by two Saubers.JuanjoTS wrote: ↑08 Apr 2017, 11:29As last week I compared the best lap of Ham (or pole position) in Q3 with the best lap of Alo, last week the distance was about 3.2s, this week the difference has been 2,649s, a Improving 0.600s, as Goldmeroso says, considering that this circuit calculated that it would be worse by its characteristics, if they have taken a good step forward.
Stoffel has had bad luck with the accident of Giovinazzi, I think it would have happened also to the q2wuzak wrote: ↑08 Apr 2017, 13:55And Vandorne was out-qualified by two Saubers.JuanjoTS wrote: ↑08 Apr 2017, 11:29As last week I compared the best lap of Ham (or pole position) in Q3 with the best lap of Alo, last week the distance was about 3.2s, this week the difference has been 2,649s, a Improving 0.600s, as Goldmeroso says, considering that this circuit calculated that it would be worse by its characteristics, if they have taken a good step forward.
My thoughts are they were chatting, possibly about the Ferrari engine. With all due respect to Andy Cowell, I don't think Honda would try to poach him from Mercedes, where they're lacking is in combustion, I don't think they need a new manager for that.
Why wouls they be chatting about Ferrar engine of all the things they can talk about?godlameroso wrote: ↑08 Apr 2017, 15:41My thoughts are they were chatting, possibly about the Ferrari engine. With all due respect to Andy Cowell, I don't think Honda would try to poach him from Mercedes, where they're lacking is in combustion, I don't think they need a new manager for that.