Spare Parts (F1 odds and ends)

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
How much of a differentiator is the ERS hardware in practice though? There are quite harsh limits on how much power can be regenerated and deployed in the different operation modes.

I suspect Ferrari and Mercedes are quite close to the maximum on that and it's the ICE and software mapping making the real difference
 
I get that after Honda and the tokens system last time they had to try and do better this time. I think that hiding the evaluation methods has made it much less transparent as to why certain PU manufacturers have been given allowances to improve. I understand why FIA didn't tell anyone the criteria as some would have 'played' the rules but keeping the rules secret has just confused things.

Also what I don't understand is the whole catchup improvements allowances are based only on ICE performance (presumably dyno data from the teams) but they are allowed to develop any part of the PU - including batteries, control electronics, mguk!
So in theory make a slightly down on power ICE unit or just map it badly and you get more development on the peripherals and next time still have an ICE that's below par so get more development money and dyno time?
The new entrants, yes, the lesson of the Honda re entry is an example of the need to allow them further development. But why those who have been a part of circus for some time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ched999uk
How much of a differentiator is the ERS hardware in practice though? There are quite harsh limits on how much power can be regenerated and deployed in the different operation modes.

I suspect Ferrari and Mercedes are quite close to the maximum on that and it's the ICE and software mapping making the real difference
If they've hit the limits on deployment/recharge for ERS the only thing I can think of is weight.

The new entrants, yes, the lesson of the Honda re entry is an example of the need to allow them further development. But why those who have been a part of circus for some time?
Ferrari designed their PU for a set of rules which were then changed after the season started, that's not really fair and, unlike Mercedes compression (if it really ever was a thing) it wasn't a 'spirit of the rules' exploit. I suspect they'll be getting bigger turbos if they can, and probably started development on them as soon as the starting procedure was changed and took away their start advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ched999uk
If they've hit the limits on deployment/recharge for ERS the only thing I can think of is weight.


Ferrari designed their PU for a set of rules which were then changed after the season started, that's not really fair and, unlike Mercedes compression (if it really ever was a thing) it wasn't a 'spirit of the rules' exploit. I suspect they'll be getting bigger turbos if they can, and probably started development on them as soon as the starting procedure was changed and took away their start advantage.
That is fair comment regarding Ferrari and its customers but relates only to the turbo. The only real new engine supplier is Audi.

I too doubt the Merc engine needed change, more of a smoke screen. But having said that why did they make the hot compression testing valid from June 1st only if not to give time to Merc to redevelop. Maybe Merc had something else that was giving them a performance benefit.
 
This is a great interview with Nico about his time battling Lewis to win the World Championship

You must log in or register to see media
Yeah, I saw that last week. Interesting to hear how they dealt with the crashes, Toto making them pay whilst Niki got them both to admit it was their fault.