Aston Martin Red Bull Racing TAG Heuer RB14

[Wynters]

anything that would have been put on max's car at the end of the year would not have been new since he never took penalties and so therefore it would have been old parts used again and not nice new fresh parts as you have suggested.

I've never said the parts used in the last race of the season were 'new fresh parts'. Please reread the example I gave in my previous post.

However, I can see we're not going to agree, as I think Verstappen took penalties at Russia and you think he 'never took penalties' so I suspect we're not operating from the same understanding and it's best to simply let this drop.

[carisi2k]

I said that he took parts at russia but my point was that post russia he never took any new parts and so we also know how much more reliable the mercedes and ferrari are and so slightly fresher Renault parts are not the same as slightly fresher mercedes and ferrari parts. At mexico the red bulls were 1 second slower then Mercedes and Ferrari in the first sector and yet they managed to make that time up and more in the other 2 sectors to have the 1 and 2 positions on the grid. The RB14 was clearly the best chassis but unfortunately the Mercedes and Ferrari were close enough to negate that performance on most of the other circuits.

I take issue with anybody suggesting that Max only did well in those final races just because he had a fresher engine. The RB14 clearly made the difference.

[GPR-A]

Yes, it doesn't play a SUCH role, but it still does, or did you intentionally skip over my entire point of the post? On tracks such as singapore it plays a role in the region of 0.1s per 10 bhp. So you can just imagine the role it plays on tracks such as baku, russia, monza, silverstone, suzuka.. to name just a few.

Anyway I fully expect you're not gonna take a single thing into consideration from my argument, so i'm gonna end the discussion from my side. No point in spinning in circles.

Assuming you do believe 10 hp equals 0.1 seconds, especially in Singapore, then that should compound and reach around a second on power hungry circuits! Which of course, is not the case.

I believe it is. 80 hp for 6.67s from the old style KERS (2009,2011-2013) was worth 0.3-0.5s. This ofcourse when deployed optimally troughout the lap, but we're talking only 6.67s after all. Now take monza for example. In 2018 it was around 58s full throttle. So that's 58s of 40kw deficit and we're not even talking about renault's inferior ERS deployment time.

In the race deficit is decreased but remains significant. Below are screenshots of typical speeds achieved on some laps. Vettel has some distant cars in front of him in this case, however when he was actually close to any cars in those locations his speed was at least 10 kmh higher than in these screenshots. And for monza there is absolutely no doubt who ran the skinniest wings of the top 3 teams.

https://i.imgur.com/hiA66SP.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/AOy1EhS.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/pjTUK6k.jpg

Plus, increased drag due to added downforce of the current generation cars reduce the impact of 10hp even further. So you need to recalculate that better.

What? It's the other way around. The more drag the more higher power will benefit you, because inherently you will spend more time on the straight than with less drag.

You are either not paying attention OR do not want to. The fact is, by Red Bull's own admission, they lack 40kw (which translates to 53hp - Link below) on peak power! They cry out loud that it hampers their straight line performance on long stretches. You seem to be averaging out that 40kw throughout a lap to support your argument, which is plain wrong.
Link -> Red Bull: Extra 40kW from Renault could've changed 2018 F1 season

I just don't understand what you mean by this peak power figure and where seems to be the issue? Yes, whenever cars are on full throttle in Q2 or Q3, renault is 40kw down. At the end of straights, they're down even more power because their ers is garbage compared to merc/ferrari.

this post is probably going to be deleted by mods for being offtopic, but I always seem to get trapped in these kind of conversations in the wrong topics.. Maybe because we're talking about an old car it would be allowed to stay?

You simplified the debate and I know we are not going anywhere here. Your statement highlighted above, is all I was trying to explain to you. Glad you got that. Renault PU disadvantage is ONLY on that last part of a STRAIGHT. Not the entire lap. The longer a straight is, the bigger the disadvantage and the shorter the straight, the disadvantage becomes very minimal. To that extent, Marina bay has small straights and Renault PU isn't handicapped.

[Juzh]

Assuming you do believe 10 hp equals 0.1 seconds, especially in Singapore, then that should compound and reach around a second on power hungry circuits! Which of course, is not the case.

I believe it is. 80 hp for 6.67s from the old style KERS (2009,2011-2013) was worth 0.3-0.5s. This ofcourse when deployed optimally troughout the lap, but we're talking only 6.67s after all. Now take monza for example. In 2018 it was around 58s full throttle. So that's 58s of 40kw deficit and we're not even talking about renault's inferior ERS deployment time.

In the race deficit is decreased but remains significant. Below are screenshots of typical speeds achieved on some laps. Vettel has some distant cars in front of him in this case, however when he was actually close to any cars in those locations his speed was at least 10 kmh higher than in these screenshots. And for monza there is absolutely no doubt who ran the skinniest wings of the top 3 teams.

https://i.imgur.com/hiA66SP.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/AOy1EhS.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/pjTUK6k.jpg

Plus, increased drag due to added downforce of the current generation cars reduce the impact of 10hp even further. So you need to recalculate that better.

What? It's the other way around. The more drag the more higher power will benefit you, because inherently you will spend more time on the straight than with less drag.

You are either not paying attention OR do not want to. The fact is, by Red Bull's own admission, they lack 40kw (which translates to 53hp - Link below) on peak power! They cry out loud that it hampers their straight line performance on long stretches. You seem to be averaging out that 40kw throughout a lap to support your argument, which is plain wrong.
Link -> Red Bull: Extra 40kW from Renault could've changed 2018 F1 season

I just don't understand what you mean by this peak power figure and where seems to be the issue? Yes, whenever cars are on full throttle in Q2 or Q3, renault is 40kw down. At the end of straights, they're down even more power because their ers is garbage compared to merc/ferrari.

this post is probably going to be deleted by mods for being offtopic, but I always seem to get trapped in these kind of conversations in the wrong topics.. Maybe because we're talking about an old car it would be allowed to stay?

You simplified the debate and I know we are not going anywhere here. Your statement highlighted above, is all I was trying to explain to you. Glad you got that. Renault PU disadvantage is ONLY on that last part of a STRAIGHT. Not the entire lap. The longer a straight is, the bigger the disadvantage and the shorter the straight, the disadvantage becomes very minimal. To that extent, Marina bay has small straights and Renault PU isn't handicapped.

You must be day dreaming mate, sorry. We're pretty much done here after this joke.

[GPR-A]

You must be day dreaming mate, sorry. We're pretty much done here after this joke.

Thank you and same to you!

[turbof1]

Usually when they say "chassis", they mean the performance of the car as a whole without the power unit. We are talking about aerodynamic performance, suspension, weight distribution,... . It's been applied mostly in media, basically to say nothing with something.

Context is important, my friend.
Lest you forget, this is f1-technical, not some casual media page.
Go one level up and you will observe that this very site has an "Aerodynamics, CHASSIS, and tyres" section. Separate terms in the context of this forum. As a moderator you must be consistent to avoid confusing other users. In fact, going by the rules of the site, I am obligated to down-vote you for your post, but I wont (this time)

Context is important, that's why it is important to explain said context else you'll risk people talking about 2 separate things, but believing they are talking about the same thing.

I hope the rest of your post is just a joke? I only clarified a particular word, which is actually relevant here. In this case chassis is meant as "aerodynamics AND the actual chassis". It's a misuse in the media, I tried to point at that as is the responsibility as a moderator. You are welcome.

[Thunder]

Cleaned up that misunderstanding.

[roon]

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/1100450418981769217