ispano6 wrote: ↑21 Sep 2020, 12:18
GhostF1 wrote: ↑21 Sep 2020, 08:48
diffuser wrote: ↑21 Sep 2020, 05:36
Come on now, what's with the -1.....Some people.... I'll even it out.
Oh come on, they almost never drive to the limit in races for a variety of reasons, tires fuel,etc.
No... but they are pushing the engines to the maximum they think they're capable of to survive 6 or so race weekends, and it's pretty clear that the sustained race mode is Honda's strong suit.
And I know that any race ending issue is counted towards reliability and a retirement is a retirement, but it should be pointed out that these weird electrical gremlins on Max's car have not caused the engines to sustain any damage and have been put back into the pool, all 3 occasions. As far as I'm aware, Honda have all their engines alive across all 4 cars which is pretty impressive and these small electrical rubbish problems are creating a more negative air in the press than perhaps is warranted.. I find it interesting Horner addresses the issues as electronic and that he will be conveying to Max what "Red Bull AND Honda have done to ensure it will not happen again".
To me it's looking pretty likely now they've been trying something on only Max's car which is probably hovering in a grey area (as the FIA ruled all four Honda engines must be run in the same mode), and it's now proven to be too risky and causes some sort of electrical hiccup sporadically. Explains why Horner and Tanabe were confident it wouldn't happen on his car again and will convey this to Max.
Will be interesting to hear what Honda say when they're asked about it soon.
In the Sept issue of Auto Sport magazine (not to be mistaken with autosport.com) it's mentioned the RA620H is using technology from Kumabou Metals (a company which touts their plating material has anti-static properties). It's through this innovation that they've been able to build a much more robust PU that won't blow like we saw during the McLaren Honda hybrid years. But the phrase anti-static had me thinking...
In Oct issue of F1 Sokuho Asaki states that they were able to turn around the issue in Monza in a very short period of time and that it was a shame that they couldn't show for it in the Mugello race. It's been said by Tanabe that from the outside the issues look similar but Asaki's comments seem to support that the issues aren't the same. It was mentioned in Mugello that RedBull are developing the floor (and I think the tub as well) and I wonder if something to do with the electronic system is affected by it. One thing that I ponder is with the RedBull cars and how they are always scraping the ground and the sparks that are produced from the leading edge of the plank. Can this generate static electricity in an undesirable(yet intentional) way? It's been mentioned here almost a decade ago about the effects of static electricity in F1 cars and the use of electrostatic/ionic means to influence downforce with low-drag. It's not out of the realm of possibilities, but one poster mentioned here a theory that RedBull had experimented with this back in 2011 and hypothesized KERS failures attributed to it. In more recent studies it's been shown that static electricity is generated from materials as it travels through air. Is the front nose doing something to create static electricity and does the car concept leverage "ionic wind" that are difficult to manage?
In the Sept Auto Sport, there was a paragraph that mentioned that before the RedBull collaboration that Honda was told to just make the best PU they can and that RB would adapt it as best they can but as the relationship developed into a partnership where they could speak their minds freely to each other that the RB16 would require much more concerted integration. Something peculiar is going on in the RB16 that is for sure. Electrostatic discharge?
Why was RB so strong in sector 3 of Mugello? All weekend long Verstappen was fastest in sector 3, particularly turn 15. In the race Riccardo commented that Albon was incredibly strong in turn 15. During the Silverstone race, Albon himself commented how strong the car was during the race through 6 & 7. Contrast that to how weak the car was in Monza through the parabolica and the two lesmos, Verstappen flying off track in Ascari. The car was supreme under braking and through the chicanes. The car seems to be weak in short corners vs long corners, in long corners the instability makes up a smaller percentage of the corner. Where as in short corners with a quick apex the instability is too much of a handicap. Much like the downforce on the rear wing takes some time to come back after the DRS flap is closed, so too the downforce on the car takes a bit of time to come back but is very strong when it is there. Long corners mask this to an extent.
To be honest I expected them to struggle more in the first sector than they actually did. Whether it was the heat helping, or the developments being introduced, in both qualifying and the race they were competitive, but the issue was still somewhat there.
Sochi will be a big test, the corners are not long but rather very sharp quick apexes.
If RB is using some sort of static airflow control any airflow attachment lag will be obvious on this track.
