2019 Renault F1 Team

[ispano6]

There is one of those made up terms, Drive-ability. What does that even mean???? Do they get amazing starts from it? no, they are average so far this, at best. Do they have less wheel spin because of it? no. Less tire consumption? No.

It was something that in the early years of the new PU regs meant something but now means nothing.

Traction and drivability are the terms Formula engineers and mechanics use. Not "mechanical grip" or some silly term that makes no sense. Drivability is the ability to modulate power delivery of the drivetrain in a way that suits the drivers style and is congruent and predictable with the given pedal input.

I always thought:
Driveability = the degree of smoothness and steadiness of acceleration of an automotive vehicle -or- (F1 specific) how good the car suits the driving style of the pilot.

Mechanical grip = The resistance between tire and surface resulting in the amount of traction a car can transfer.

Aerodynamical grip = Stability of the car in the airflow.

the above two phrases with the term "grip" are plain stupid talk.

when people say mechanical grip they mean to say traction.

I've never heard of aerodynamic grip. In aerodynamics there is downforce, drag, resistance, dirty air, and wake. There is no such thing as air grip. There is surface tension, coefficient of friction etc. To call it aerodynamic grip is a misuse of diction.

Listen to Toto Wolff or the drivers, they always mention drivability, traction, and balance.

[diffuser]

Traction and drivability are the terms Formula engineers and mechanics use. Not "mechanical grip" or some silly term that makes no sense. Drivability is the ability to modulate power delivery of the drivetrain in a way that suits the drivers style and is congruent and predictable with the given pedal input.

I always thought:
Driveability = the degree of smoothness and steadiness of acceleration of an automotive vehicle -or- (F1 specific) how good the car suits the driving style of the pilot.

Mechanical grip = The resistance between tire and surface resulting in the amount of traction a car can transfer.

Aerodynamical grip = Stability of the car in the airflow.

the above two phrases with the term "grip" are plain stupid talk.

when people say mechanical grip they mean to say traction.

I've never heard of aerodynamic grip. In aerodynamics there is downforce, drag, resistance, dirty air, and wake. There is no such thing as air grip. There is surface tension, coefficient of friction etc. To call it aerodynamic grip is a misuse of diction.

Listen to Toto Wolff or the drivers, they always mention drivability, traction, and balance.

Mechanical Grip is non Downforce aided traction.

[diffuser]

My biggest point was Drivability from a PU point of View was a big differentiation in the earlier years of the new PU regs. Literally some PUs Just turned on the 160HP from the MGU-K and off, at 1 point McLaren had to avoid a certain RPM range and this list goes on. It just isn't anymore. Yes there are times when power increases are made in the PU that PU drive-ability suffers. That is certainly noticed, mentioned by the drivers and is corrected. Honda and the Japanese don't own drive-ability. They don't do something to make their PU more drive-able than the others. Even if they did, it wouldn't add up to any meaningful lap-time.

[ispano6]

I always thought:
Driveability = the degree of smoothness and steadiness of acceleration of an automotive vehicle -or- (F1 specific) how good the car suits the driving style of the pilot.

Mechanical grip = The resistance between tire and surface resulting in the amount of traction a car can transfer.

Aerodynamical grip = Stability of the car in the airflow.

the above two phrases with the term "grip" are plain stupid talk.

when people say mechanical grip they mean to say traction.

I've never heard of aerodynamic grip. In aerodynamics there is downforce, drag, resistance, dirty air, and wake. There is no such thing as air grip. There is surface tension, coefficient of friction etc. To call it aerodynamic grip is a misuse of diction.

Listen to Toto Wolff or the drivers, they always mention drivability, traction, and balance.

Mechanical Grip is non Downforce aided traction.

You're way over generalizing and applying the term mechanical to grip which makes no sense. drivability is mechanical, grip is the amount of traction two physical surfaces have against each other with relation to its surface area and coefficient of friction.

Earlier I forgot to mention lift and boundary layers but the only effect of aerodynamics that remotely resembles grip are surface orifices or structures that create pockets of air of various pressure differences that influence flow around the boundary layer and air bubble that cocoons parts of the structure. I would never call it grip though, probably would call it fluidity.

[ispano6]

My biggest point was Drivability from a PU point of View was a big differentiation in the earlier years of the new PU regs. Literally some PUs Just turned on the 160HP from the MGU-K and off, at 1 point McLaren had to avoid a certain RPM range and this list goes on. It just isn't anymore. Yes there are times when power increases are made in the PU that PU drive-ability suffers. That is certainly noticed, mentioned by the drivers and is corrected. Honda and the Japanese don't own drive-ability. They don't do something to make their PU more drive-able than the others. Even if they did, it wouldn't add up to any meaningful lap-time.

Honda values drivability and the enjoyment of driving probably more than other brands. They are particular about their engine note.
Drivability connects with confidence, and if you don't think confidence contributes to lap times I suggest you speak to some drivers about that.

[diffuser]

My biggest point was Drivability from a PU point of View was a big differentiation in the earlier years of the new PU regs. Literally some PUs Just turned on the 160HP from the MGU-K and off, at 1 point McLaren had to avoid a certain RPM range and this list goes on. It just isn't anymore. Yes there are times when power increases are made in the PU that PU drive-ability suffers. That is certainly noticed, mentioned by the drivers and is corrected. Honda and the Japanese don't own drive-ability. They don't do something to make their PU more drive-able than the others. Even if they did, it wouldn't add up to any meaningful lap-time.

Honda values drivability and the enjoyment of driving probably more than other brands. They are particular about their engine note.
Drivability connects with confidence, and if you don't think confidence contributes to lap times I suggest you speak to some drivers about that.

Nope that is not what I said. go back and read what I wrote.

[PhillipM]

Mclaren had massive issues with the Honda driveability and spent pretty much an entire year working with Honda to fix it. They said the Renault was fine straight out of the box last year.

[Capharol]

Mclaren had massive issues with the Honda driveability and spent pretty much an entire year working with Honda to fix it. They said the Renault was fine straight out of the box last year.

Same ol' song.... McLaren blames Honda, RB blames Renault and the answer is somewhere in the middle, but we will never know.
So can we please stop with the "blamegame" and move on.... both teams seems to be happy for now

[PhillipM]

It's nothing to do with 'blame' - Honda will tell you the same thing.

[Espresso]

I always thought:
Driveability = the degree of smoothness and steadiness of acceleration of an automotive vehicle -or- (F1 specific) how good the car suits the driving style of the pilot.

Mechanical grip = The resistance between tire and surface resulting in the amount of traction a car can transfer.

Aerodynamical grip = Stability of the car in the airflow.

the above two phrases with the term "grip" are plain stupid talk.

when people say mechanical grip they mean to say traction.

I've never heard of aerodynamic grip. In aerodynamics there is downforce, drag, resistance, dirty air, and wake. There is no such thing as air grip. There is surface tension, coefficient of friction etc. To call it aerodynamic grip is a misuse of diction.

Listen to Toto Wolff or the drivers, they always mention drivability, traction, and balance.

Mechanical Grip is non Downforce aided traction.

If not interested in a 'theoretical discussion' please skip to the next post.

Best not to confuse (most readers) with theoretical 'lift', 'airflow', 'drag' & derivated terms.
This discussion is at least becoming totally contradictory and fusing/mixing unrelated terms together.

Whether we use 'grip or resistance' is the same discussion of using 'lift, downforce or suction'. Nobody wants to hear an airplane is 'sucked' in the air and a F1 car is 'sucked' on the ground. Or debating the word downforce is incorrect and we should use the correct term 'inverted lift'. We know it's 'incorrect to the letter', but these terms are clear and simple and prevent miscommunication. Hence why they are used.

Grip = what you mentioned friction between to surfaces. It doesn't matter what material it consist off. And to subdivide it can be solid (mechanical grip), fluid (fluidical) or gas (aerodynamical).
Traction = force that can increase something in speed (using grip)
Drag = force that can slow down something in speed (using grip)

As mentioned what Tot and drivers say....is what they say.

I leave it at that...

[rogazilla]

All 4 manufactures probably know what they need to do to provide a desired power delivery after all these years but it doesn't mean once they get it right that's it. Some of the parts update will change the characteristic of the power and it will require tuning. The complexity of hybrid with power coming from K/ICE and how come on and off probably will change as they update the engine. I remember last year if it was Vet or Rai had those snap spin and that could be the power suddenly came on and over come the rear (my speculation) and that's driveability. It probably need constantly tuning based on driver feedback.

Now more Renault specific to this, when the PU is mapped and they found MGU-K to be problematic and turned down the engine or change the map, it surely change the characteristic of the power delivery.

[SmallSoldier]

It's nothing to do with 'blame' - Honda will tell you the same thing.

It’s funny how the RBH fans are quick to point that they are struggling because they lost “one day of testing” due to Gasly’s crash and how big of an effect that missing day is having on the car’s performance... But seem oblivious to the fact that Mclaren was losing 3-4 days of testing every season due to the reliability problems of the Honda engine and the effect that had in their seasons (not considering of course, the amount of missed FP1’s and FP2’s due to the same problem).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[langedweil]

Didn’t you just confirm the same there ?
RBH losing 1.5 days & are far from optimum (ie not batteling upfront), McL having their Honda problems that cost them a whole lot more than just that ?

[ispano6]

My biggest point was Drivability from a PU point of View was a big differentiation in the earlier years of the new PU regs. Literally some PUs Just turned on the 160HP from the MGU-K and off, at 1 point McLaren had to avoid a certain RPM range and this list goes on. It just isn't anymore. Yes there are times when power increases are made in the PU that PU drive-ability suffers. That is certainly noticed, mentioned by the drivers and is corrected. Honda and the Japanese don't own drive-ability. They don't do something to make their PU more drive-able than the others. Even if they did, it wouldn't add up to any meaningful lap-time.

Honda values drivability and the enjoyment of driving probably more than other brands. They are particular about their engine note.
Drivability connects with confidence, and if you don't think confidence contributes to lap times I suggest you speak to some drivers about that.

Nope that is not what I said. go back and read what I wrote.

They don't do something to make their PU more drive-able than the others. Even if they did, it wouldn't add up to any meaningful lap-time.

So what were you saying again? that drivability doesn't contribute to lap time? im saying confidence through drivability makes drivers faster, but you don't have to agree.

[diffuser]

Honda values drivability and the enjoyment of driving probably more than other brands. They are particular about their engine note.
Drivability connects with confidence, and if you don't think confidence contributes to lap times I suggest you speak to some drivers about that.

Nope that is not what I said. go back and read what I wrote.

They don't do something to make their PU more drive-able than the others. Even if they did, it wouldn't add up to any meaningful lap-time.

So what were you saying again? that drivability doesn't contribute to lap time? im saying confidence through drivability makes drivers faster, but you don't have to agree.

I said they all work on drive-ability and you can't compare mass produced cars to f1 in that light. Just because you work for Honda and/or are Japanese doesn't mean you'll build a more drivable pu. There is no correlation.