It looks to me like the stability got a bit worse towards the end of the lap, but in general the radio traffic from Max was more positive than FP1 last week.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
What is the use of demonstrating that a PU can last 7 GP if with a new specification it can obtain better results.
Let's state my assumptions. 1. We don't actually know which spec the run all times in all sessions. 2. Engine knowledge gained (reliability, model correlation, performance, etc) learned from the most recent spec are more valuable than those learned on earlier specs. 3. RBR/Honda is optimizing for max knowledge and a title challenge in 2020 4. More replicates of any given experiment are better (lets do these tests on as many cars as possible - logical, and also a consequence of 3)
Very good. Thank younzjrs wrote: ↑27 Sep 2019, 14:03Let's state my assumptions. 1. We don't actually know which spec the run all times in all sessions. 2. Engine knowledge gained (reliability, model correlation, performance, etc) learned from the most recent spec are more valuable than those learned on earlier specs. 3. RBR/Honda is optimizing for max knowledge and a title challenge in 2020 4. More replicates of any given experiment are better (lets do these tests on as many cars as possible - logical, and also a consequence of 3)
That said, let's count a normal 'weekend' as just Qualy and Race. We have 9 qualy/race sessions since Spa for the spec 4.
On one hand, assuming that they want to run the expected 7 weekends per engine, they need to fill those other two weekends. According to 2, let's learn more about a newer spec than an old one in 'weekend' running (Q/R), so let's take another spec 4. for the other 2 weekends (only)
They have even come out this weekend and said in public that they additionally want to run the new spec on Friday too (which is unsurprising, because of 2, and because of the well publicized trend they have of taking a few weekends to get a new running optimally (ref: France, starts, etc). Interestingly, it also kind of implies that wasn't always the case.
But even if they didn't say that, I would have assumed it from assumption 2 being so clearly the right one.
Let's take another possible scenario. Run the current spec4 until failure/ the end of the season. The plebs love a good failure, so that's not really good PR, but it is typically more valuable (my assumption number 4) to do non-destructive testing (don't run till failure), so you would probably not want to run it too much longer beyond the normal 7 weekend life, lets say 8 weekends then, you still have a weekend to fill. Why would you run a spec3 for that weekend (point 2 above), and if you did, you would have to believe that it is not 5 grid places slower than a spec 4 (i.e. the penalty this weekend).
So, basically there are 43 good interlocking arguments for doing it the way they have done it, they way they have done it is consistent with what they said they would do, what we have observed, and what I as an engineer would also do. There are only worse arguments, memes and oh-look-a-PU-usage-chart arguments in the other direction.
Include the totality of knowledge and observations.
Right, they might call it a "development push" and say "everything is calculated". But in the same time they can hide other things behind the screen.shingles wrote: ↑27 Sep 2019, 12:50Because they have already said that they are going to push development so they will use more engines. They said it before they season, they have continued to say it. This is not "unnecessary", it's calculated. The whole ICE penalty this weekend, it's all about the next race. They want a fresh engine for the home race. The reality is, the penalty this weekend probably doesn't mean much. If it's a clean race, they will probably end up in P4-6... probably where they would have been without the engine penalty.
The real question is: why do people keep ignoring that part of the equation?
As Honda has stated. They have prioritized taking a fresh Spec 4 this weekend so they can then run Spec 4 in all practice sessions to get better mapping for the remaining year.
auv wrote: ↑27 Sep 2019, 14:39Right, they might call it a "development push" and say "everything is calculated". But in the same time they can hide other things behind the screen.shingles wrote: ↑27 Sep 2019, 12:50Because they have already said that they are going to push development so they will use more engines. They said it before they season, they have continued to say it. This is not "unnecessary", it's calculated. The whole ICE penalty this weekend, it's all about the next race. They want a fresh engine for the home race. The reality is, the penalty this weekend probably doesn't mean much. If it's a clean race, they will probably end up in P4-6... probably where they would have been without the engine penalty.
The real question is: why do people keep ignoring that part of the equation?
Why do people keep ignoring that other manufacturers are developing too ?
And if Honda is pushing, then they, probably, pushing in wrong direction, because Ferrari have managed to overcome Mercedes on straights without any penalties.
Or, maybe, RB15 is now consistently faster than W10 in quali or race pace? No, it is not.
So, put aside those extra PU, what are the results of Honda development?
They have not to keep same way with ferrari anyway. Honda started their race from different level and had different aproach from start. Choose different layout on the Engine. Anything alike...auv wrote: ↑27 Sep 2019, 14:39Right, they might call it a "development push" and say "everything is calculated". But in the same time they can hide other things behind the screen.shingles wrote: ↑27 Sep 2019, 12:50Because they have already said that they are going to push development so they will use more engines. They said it before they season, they have continued to say it. This is not "unnecessary", it's calculated. The whole ICE penalty this weekend, it's all about the next race. They want a fresh engine for the home race. The reality is, the penalty this weekend probably doesn't mean much. If it's a clean race, they will probably end up in P4-6... probably where they would have been without the engine penalty.
The real question is: why do people keep ignoring that part of the equation?
Why do people keep ignoring that other manufacturers are developing too ?
And if Honda is pushing, then they, probably, pushing in wrong direction, because Ferrari have managed to overcome Mercedes on straights without any penalties.
Or, maybe, RB15 is now consistently faster than W10 in quali or race pace? No, it is not.
So, put aside those extra PU, what are the results of Honda development?
They will gain more long term by losing a few points this week. Not to mention being on best behavior to perform infront of those who make the financial decisions next time out.godlameroso wrote: ↑27 Sep 2019, 15:37Verstappen's pace in Sochi is very encouraging. A 5 place grid penalty is going to hurt his chances of winning, but it is definitely there.
I hope it's not the case, but I have the feeling RBR ran higher engine-modes than Merc and Fer today. Come Saturday the gap will (unfortunately) significantly decrease or will be behind Merc and Fer.
