Do we know if it's the one he got after imola?
Deploying further down the straight isn’t necessarily a good thing. If the objective is shortest time to traverse the straight then deploying more ERS at the beginning of the straight can be the way to go. That means using e-supercharge for longer and plain MGU-K less at the end of the straight.
This is one of the interesting little nuances of modern F1.henry wrote: ↑11 May 2021, 18:35Deploying further down the straight isn’t necessarily a good thing. If the objective is shortest time to traverse the straight then deploying more ERS at the beginning of the straight can be the way to go. That means using e-supercharge for longer and plain MGU-K less at the end of the straight.
I won’t say too much here since we’re veering off topic.Craigy wrote: ↑12 May 2021, 12:11This is one of the interesting little nuances of modern F1.henry wrote: ↑11 May 2021, 18:35Deploying further down the straight isn’t necessarily a good thing. If the objective is shortest time to traverse the straight then deploying more ERS at the beginning of the straight can be the way to go. That means using e-supercharge for longer and plain MGU-K less at the end of the straight.
By some logic, deploying it all at the start of a straight is "best" because you will potentially maintain any speed you have for the rest of the straight. That was true in the past formulae and is often but not always true today.
On some track layouts it's a little more complex than that.
If you have a straight of length X and a electrical power budget of Y for the straight, it may actually work out better to:
1. Initially get to the required top speed (which is a lower speed than fully depleting the power budget all at the start of the straight)
2. Bleed off the epower to maintain a lower top speed for longer (to limit drag -- effectively, use the epower for longer at a lower top speed, because the drag cost will overall be lower)
3. Harvest at the end of the straight, in order to recoup for the start of the next one (this is very track layout dependent).
Ultimately, for race laps it's a question of the highest average speed around the lap, not the highest terminal speed on a given straight. Reverse all that if you're overtaking/defending. More variables.
I think longer straights, like in Spa, are probably closer to the (2) option. The track being super long (but the power budget being the same as on a short track) is one of the reasons.
Knowing F1, everyone will be pushing 126.3 kW on the electrical cables then.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑09 May 2021, 09:04this means .....dans79 wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 23:40Yep, The technical regulations show where you can gain an advantage.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -03-05.pdf
5.2.2Energy flows, power and ES state of charge limits are defined in the energy flow diagram
shown in Appendix 3 of these regulations ...
Electrical DC measurements will be used to verify that the energy and power requirements
are being respected.
A fixed efficiency correction of 0.95 will be used to monitor the maximum MGU-K power.
the electrical limit (power from the DC line) is 126.3 kW .... so ....
if the efficiency from electrical input power to mechanical power delivered to the crankshaft is 95% .....
the mechanical power delivered to the crankshaft is 120 kW
if the efficiency is over 95% the legal mechanical power could slightly exceed 120 kW
Hmm. These views may change if new rear wing flexibility tests affect Redbull. It could be that RedBull is able to save on deployment because of the reduced drag.
Was just thinking this same thing. Good point.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑13 May 2021, 00:57Hmm. These views may change if new rear wing flexibility tests affect Redbull. It could be that RedBull is able to save on deployment because of the reduced drag.
That's a nice overview with regard to the RB16B, but I don't see a source mentioned anywhere with regard to the Honda statements.zibby43 wrote: ↑16 May 2021, 23:32The Honda PU is suffering from vibration issues. This is what was causing the electronics problems. The PU has had to be turned down slightly to prevent more failures. Something that can hopefully be addressed for '22, as some of the components brought forward to '21 were theoretically best-suited to be fully exploited next year.
Excerpt:
"Vibration problems led to the replacement of parts of electronic components , such as the battery and the control unit on Perez's cars and the two Alpha Tauri, and above all a less aggressive use of the hybrid part of the Japanese unit compared to the first round of the season."
https://www.formu1a.uno/le-vibrazioni-d ... -red-bull/
its hard to belive for me engine control, and other electronic units, like batteries, which can be protected against mechanical issues, are suffering from vibration, but the mechanical parts, like shafts, axles, mgu-k, which already had major failures due vibration in the past, can function without issues.zibby43 wrote: ↑16 May 2021, 23:32The Honda PU is suffering from vibration issues. This is what was causing the electronics problems. The PU has had to be turned down slightly to prevent more failures. Something that can hopefully be addressed for '22, as some of the components brought forward to '21 were theoretically best-suited to be fully exploited next year.
Excerpt:
"Vibration problems led to the replacement of parts of electronic components , such as the battery and the control unit on Perez's cars and the two Alpha Tauri, and above all a less aggressive use of the hybrid part of the Japanese unit compared to the first round of the season."
https://www.formu1a.uno/le-vibrazioni-d ... -red-bull/