ENGINE TUNER wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 02:34
Maritimer wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 00:40
Loads of downforce was the biggest thing, Mexico for sure is aero limited even though it has the longest(second longest?) straight on the calendar. The Renault engine "worked better" because it was less powerful and the drivers weren't as traction limited there as elsewhere. Less power meant they were less likely to light up the tires due to reduced aero loads and could get on the power sooner.
It could be that the RB teams and Renault/McL will be closer again to the front pair assuming the chassis cooperate and they can throw enough wing at the cars.
It had nothing at all to do with the Renault PU. The gap the Renault PU has to the other PU'S is lessened in the high altitude, but it has no advantages. The Renault factory cars were not any higher than usual at Mexico.
The RBR was fast in Mexico for the same reason that they were fast in Monaco, their maximum downforce package was superior to the rest of the field and it helped them take care of the tires.
Yup, gap between Renault and Merc/Ferrari was bigger than usual and the gap between Renault and RBR was ridiculous. RBR were out in the distance because they had the least graining overall, Ferrari had worse front tire graining but rear tires held up well so they still had decent traction while the Merc had worse rear tire graining and struggled to get power down. Everyone behind them had hilariously bad graining and couldn't do anything on either tire.
I think where say most races Renault were 1 second a lap slower than those at the front in Mexico they were like 3 seconds a lap off the pace. That race was primarily about tires. Another example of the tires being dire last year as well, when even the front team has bad graining, just no where near as bad, and the 4th fastest team have a 3 second gap vs usual 1 second, the tires were completely and utterly unsuitable.
