Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[Phil]

Sorry, I should have worded my post better. The point of bringing up Mercedes was because we know with certainty that they are the benchmark, the strongest engine bar none. So if the strongest engine bar none, was only 5 kmh faster in the speed trap than a Ferrari and Renault engined car managed in QF, the data IMO can't be used to highlight any difference between the Renault and Ferrari engine. Perhaps the speed-trap is at a point where all engines are still producing enough power to be leveled to a certain degree, or the cornering-speed at which point the cars go onto full throttle is too much of a factor.

PS: I'm probably more on the side that thinks the Renault engine was slightly better than Ferrari too... but this data isn't showing it (and as per my point, i don't think tells us an awful lot). Still great for bringing them into the discussion though. If you look at the QF board, it can be easily seen that over the course of a lap, Mercedes dominated the time sheet with the works-team and Williams, even McLaren, then closely followed by a miss-match with Renault and Ferrari engined cars... So perhaps the truth is closer that give or take, both engines were very similar performance wise and any differences we are picking out are down to packaging, chassis and overal reliability in all teams to get the best results out of the PU.

[Moose]

Sorry, I should have worded my post better. The point of bringing up Mercedes was because we know with certainty that they are the benchmark, the strongest engine bar none.

Do we?

That's not at all clear to me. It's clear to me that they have a more drivable engine than Renault, and a more reliable one than both Renault and Honda, but it's not at all clear to me that they have the strongest.

What evidence do you have that they do?

[Phil]

"Strongest" in the context of my post means considering all factors, like "power output", (probably "drivability" if its a function of raw power), "reliability" and "efficiency".

The former has been a rumour ever since before pre-season testing of 2014. Then pretty much the headline news up until at least 3 grand prix in of 2014, but still a topic until now. And thirdly, lots of speak from both Renault and Ferrari that Mercedes have a huge advantage. That advantage is most likely down to the 'efficiency' factor, because of their split turbo / compressor layout. Do you need more evidence than this? How about evidence to the contrary point?

EDIT: If we are really having this discussion; I'd be also quite curious to what "drivability" refers to. Linear power delievery? Throttle response? Or is it more than just looking at the engine, but also includes the unit performing with the drive-train?

[FoxHound]

"Strongest" in the context of my post means considering all factors, like "power output", (probably "drivability" if its a function of raw power), "reliability" and "efficiency".

The former has been a rumour ever since before pre-season testing of 2014. Then pretty much the headline news up until at least 3 grand prix in of 2014, but still a topic until now. And thirdly, lots of speak from both Renault and Ferrari that Mercedes have a huge advantage. That advantage is most likely down to the 'efficiency' factor, because of their split turbo / compressor layout. Do you need more evidence than this? How about evidence to the contrary point?

EDIT: If we are really having this discussion; I'd be also quite curious to what "drivability" refers to. Linear power delievery? Throttle response? Or is it more than just looking at the engine, but also includes the unit performing with the drive-train?

Driveability can refer to many things. But mainly how easy it is to use and the smoothness of power delivery.
A bit of a drastic comparison, but compare a diesel unit to a V-tec engine.
The diesel trumps it in terms of driveability because more of the power is on tap more of the time.

I'd still always take the V-tec

But in relation to F1, A straightforward comparison is not wholly possible(driveability terms)
We know Mercedes have the best engine, from speed traps(not the best way to decipher, but I'll cede that point for another time)
We also know that last year Ferrari and Renault could not fully utilise their own PU's due to a raft of factors.
Cooling, reliability, electrical gremlins and on and on.

Ferrari have made big gains in being able to use their engine at a higher rate of performance than before.
They've used the least tokens of all 3 2014 engine manufacturers...yet are seeing progress.
It may not be stellar progress, but with the complexity of these PU's any aggressive strategy in terms of development is going to end up with what you have at Red Bull/Renault.

Problems, steps backward etc.

[Phil]

Yeah, that's what I was actually thinking too. But given we have pretty strict regulations on fuel-flow, I'm wondering if driveability is really that different between engine manufacturers. Perhaps in combination with how KERS is deployed, but even then, I don't see huge differences in the power (torque) delievery. I mean, a Diesel and a V-Tec will be very different, given that the Diesel produces max torque at nearly idle compared to the V-Tec that needs to be revved for power. But in F1, I really can't see much point in discussing drivability, because they would all be rather similar and we don't have any actual factual figures (power/torque curves to prove otherwise) and any differences that do exist, can be somewhat countered with gear-ratios because torque at the wheel is what counts.

PS: Yes, I'd take the V-Tec power delievery too, thank you very much. Speaking as a Exige owner with a very similar engine that needs to have the nuts revved off to get somewhere.

[zgred]

Cyril Abiteboul said on Auto-Hebdo that RB11 has some chassis issues also. He mentioned some instability with the rear

"In addition to our problems," Abiteboul told France's Auto Hebdo magazine, "Red Bull has some chassis problems that do not help the situation.

"In particular, the lack of rear stability. These two problems combine to ensure the car is difficult to drive."

Source: Renault accuses Red Bull of lying

[zeph]

http://m.autosport.com/news/report.php/ ... ne-in-2015

Renault concedes that it has made shortcuts in a bid to accelerate development - and it is now paying the price.

"We have been pushing an aggressive and late development programme over the winter," said Abiteboul.

"What we have done is shortcut and bypass the important steps in engine development. That means some of the stuff you should be doing on the dyno, you end up doing on the track.

"That's not really the way forward, but it is good learning for everyone who was pushing for this strategy.

"I think it is no secret that Red Bull in particular is very aggressive in their development strategy. They try to get us to apply in the engine world what they apply in the chassis world.

"We can do a better job on the engine side but it is not something you can do in one winter."

[Emphasis mine]
Sounds to me like RBR insisted on this fast-development strategy, and it backfired. It may be possible to do that with chassis development, but these hybrid PU's are something else.

[AlainProst]

What is this story of this flowmeter rule bypass from Ferrari and Mercedes ?

Is it really a enormous advantage which explain Renault regression or is it an overdone rumour?

[FW17]

Cyril Abiteboul is Crazy

First runs CaterHam to tHe ground

Now

" It's hard to have a partner who lies. Adrian is a charming gentleman and an outstanding engineer," he added, "but he has spent his life criticising his engine manufacturers. And he's too old to change."

[FoxHound]

@Zeph

We established as much from Renault last week. I think this has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with the fact Red Bull do not produce engines. They don't have the experience or expertise whereas Renault do, and Renault themselves should not have allowed Red Bull dictation to impede on their program.

If Red Bull are to stick around longer, this will certainly be a lesson well learned. For Renault as a supplier too.
But I think the PR machine is out in anger, so we can expect some more stories emanating from both in the coming weeks in regard to this.

@Phil
Very nice motor, the Elise. I'm too big for it, so I'll stick with the S2K

@Williams
How did Abiteboul run Caterham to the ground? Not up on that situation presently, but I believe that was due to lack of funding.
Anymore to the story quoting him on Newey? A link perhaps?

[zgred]

@Williams
How did Abiteboul run Caterham to the ground? Not up on that situation presently, but I believe that was due to lack of funding.
Anymore to the story quoting him on Newey? A link perhaps?

Source: Renault accuses Red Bull of lying

[Phil]

I think this has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with the fact Red Bull do not produce engines. They don't have the experience or expertise whereas Renault do, and Renault themselves should not have allowed Red Bull dictation to impede on their program.

This. This is actually also why I only really classify them as a "semi" works-team. Mercedes and Ferrari can probably plan their entire car (or engine) to a much better degree as a package, than probably Renault can with RedBull. What gives them an advantage over other Renault customer teams is probably that RedBull has a lot more insight or ability to give feedback on engine related development. Having that said, I wonder to what degree McLaren and Honda can be considered a works-team to the degree Mercedes and probably Ferrari is... then the other question is, if this matters at all in the grand scheme of things... Just a thought.

[FoxHound]

Phil,

I was led to believe that Renault and Red Bull are a de facto "manufacturers" team. It may not have the n'th degree of collaboration, but the game is up with Red Bull demanding specific items be added without proper testing.

In normal customer/supplier relations this would not occur.
Abiteboul's comments are fair game in my view, especially with the rhetoric coming out of Red Bull.
This is Renault responding in kind.

Interesting that he mentioned an unstable rear end, too.
The permutations we can extrapolate from it are many, but did Red Bull push Renault into more compact/lighter parts to try get some rear DF?
We know they are hurting from the Coanda/EBD ban, so I'd say its a decent shout.

Thanks for the link Zgred.

[djos]

Interesting that he mentioned an unstable rear end, too.

When your engine is not delivering it's power in a smooth manner it's little wonder the rear of the RB11 is unstable, even the TR drivers have been critical of the Renault PU!

Renault themselves have already admitted fault!

Renault concedes that it has made shortcuts in a bid to accelerate development - and it is now paying the price.

"We have been pushing an aggressive and late development programme over the winter," said Abiteboul.

"What we have done is shortcut and bypass the important steps in engine development. That means some of the stuff you should be doing on the dyno, you end up doing on the track.

"That's not really the way forward, but it is good learning for everyone who was pushing for this strategy.

"I think it is no secret that Red Bull in particular is very aggressive in their development strategy. They try to get us to apply in the engine world what they apply in the chassis world.

"We can do a better job on the engine side but it is not something you can do in one winter."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118171

Sorry Renault but this is an own goal, RBR are right to give you a bollocking!!

Oh and why did you (Renault) only start working on your 2015 engine in the winter? you should have been working on it since March 2014!!!

So to sum up:

* Started dev on 2015 engine late .. in the winter
* Cut corners during the program because they were late starting
* RBR "tried" to get Renault to speed up dev (note the word try, does not imply Renault bent to pressure at all)!
* Renault admit they can do a better job

[djos]

Cyril Abiteboul said on Auto-Hebdo that RB11 has some chassis issues also. He mentioned some instability with the rear

"In addition to our problems," Abiteboul told France's Auto Hebdo magazine, "Red Bull has some chassis problems that do not help the situation.

"In particular, the lack of rear stability. These two problems combine to ensure the car is difficult to drive."

Source: Renault accuses Red Bull of lying

It's BS, Renault themselves have already admitted fault!

Renault concedes that it has made shortcuts in a bid to accelerate development - and it is now paying the price.

"We have been pushing an aggressive and late development programme over the winter," said Abiteboul.

"What we have done is shortcut and bypass the important steps in engine development. That means some of the stuff you should be doing on the dyno, you end up doing on the track.

"That's not really the way forward, but it is good learning for everyone who was pushing for this strategy.

"I think it is no secret that Red Bull in particular is very aggressive in their development strategy. They try to get us to apply in the engine world what they apply in the chassis world.

"We can do a better job on the engine side but it is not something you can do in one winter."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118171