Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper
I wish that was the case, sometimes you get lucky but the final absolute result as Honda found out and I have seen is the installed PU in the car and out on the track. So many things can go wrong with the installation and it is always the preferred method of validation.
|
So i will admit to being overly enthusiastic as to the "ideal" scenario of internal testing replacing on-track. I think that would be everyone's goal if it could be done reliably and cheaply. But in the end, and as you say, you still have to do physical on-track testing because you continue to expose issues that were not found previously. But in general I think what I talk about works (+/-). It is why we see such high reliability in cars today. Overall my point was more about the quality of your correlation (between internal design/testing and on-track performance). I expect someone like Mercedes has it and someone like Williams (chassis) and Honda (power unit) does not (Honda might now).
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks
I don't think you mentioned it:
Red Bull has a full car dyno. McLaren does not (Reanult didn't have one until this season either).
Obviously since Honda signed with Toro Rosso, the Honda engine in a Toro Rosso (and now Red Bull car) has been running on the Red Bull full car dyno and this is very helpful.
|
My post already was a novel and didn't know the full picture.
I didn't have the details you mention. I had read previously about the RBR vs. McLaren situation. I wasn't sure (still not) if McLaren and Honda tried to get one prior to the divorce or not. I know that Honda staffed up in the UK while trying to fix the engine and I wondered if that is where they may have tried that type of integration testing. I expected Mercedes uses one and I know Ferrari does. I didn't know the situation with Renault or anyone else. Note that those at the front of the pack... have and use these tools.
Richard