This is exactly the situation Red Bull were in last year. They had an excellent car which, together with Ricciardo, is what allowed them to overcome the problems with the Renault power unit and pick up three wins. Vettel turned out to be yet another "great" driver who can't deal with a car with issues and which is not totally to his liking and thus got hammered by the more adaptable Ricciardo.
Australian Grand Prix 2015, Melbourne - Race 1/19
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
This is exactly the situation Red Bull were in last year. They had an excellent car which, together with Ricciardo, is what allowed them to overcome the problems with the Renault power unit and pick up three wins. Vettel turned out to be yet another "great" driver who can't deal with a car with issues and which is not totally to his liking and thus got hammered by the more adaptable Ricciardo.
Soldato
Caporegime
I know why they did it; that doesn't mean I think it was a sensible way to do it.
Soldato
OK, so what's your sensible alternative that costs the same?
This depends on what data they need. Surly they'll be doing what ever they need to get that data, as even JB has said he won't be working his way forward in the race.
Soldato
Those Renaults are ****!
Remember Red Bull and Torro Rosso probably have higher downforce setups, in much the same way Mercedes GP do. So they could probably get higher speeds if they really wanted ala Williams.
Soldato
Could be running lots of rear wing to try and take the edge off the power delivery issues.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It's really more what muon said, it's just the style of the now only two Renault runners. Look how far down Merc are on Williams yet Merc destroy them in real pace. You can generally speaking go low drag/low downforce/high straight line speed, or you can go high downforce/higher drag/lower straight line speed. If you put a Williams design car with a Renault type engine it would be doing Merc levels speeds.
Renault is certainly down on top speed and power but it looks worse than it is because the style of car design both Renault teams follow.
Soldato
Can you teach me how to suck eggs as well?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I don't know, Mercs are the only team who can mix it up with Mclaren tomorrow. Being that they are the only team with a chance to catch up and lap them before their engines blow up
I hope to see TR/Sauber/Lotus mixing it up with various teams, each other, probably RBR as it's unlikely they can improve the driveability issues. Race pace will be interesting, efficiency could still be a reason that Williams could have a higher race pace than Ferrari. Would be great to see TR/Sauber/Lotus being stronger in race pace than qualifying and actually mixing it up with Ferrari/Williams though I suspect there will be a gap behind Ferrari/Williams.
Yeh I guess, but do Torro Rosso have the same problems? I think Chris Horner said yes in one of the sky interviews, or I may be imagining things.
Also didn't RBR opt for more straight line speed as they progressed through last season? Especially on Vettel's car.
edit:
I think we need a submit a question to the sky team for chris horner.
Last edited:
Soldato
So despite the fact that Mclaren and Honda have several hundred employees, a good portion of which are extremely esteemed in terms of intellect and engineering ingenuity, theres a couple of armchair f1 experts on here that seem to think they know better and about Mclaren's current ethos on running with limited power.
Whoa. Mind blown.
Whoa. Mind blown.
Soldato
Well McLaren haven't exactly succeeded so far have they?
Soldato
Honda are not running full power.
A video on the BBC showed how slow Button was on the straight and that's where he lost 5 seconds in one lap.
I think McLaren will pit the cars rather then being lapped twice or more.
Soldato
we are talking about their current situation. a race distance hasnt even been completed with this new package. What would you have done differently to them today?
I was gonna say, armchair experts aside, the "several hundred" actual experts have managed to build a car capable of coming... last.
How do they compare to the times of last year, when all the other engines were new (ignoring qualifying as it was wet).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The excuses contradict each other, it's that simple.
There are no heat problems or cooling problems, the engine has no problems and it's reliable. They say that one day then the next day they are saying they can't run hotter because they need to save the engines.
They need to save engines because of the engine limits.... but they start from the back and go stupid slow anyway. They don't have experience of the engine running at a higher temp(despite ability to do so in a dyno) and actively refuse to turn up the engine to gain experience.
The same guy says the engine is fine, but they don't know what it will do when turned up.
Assuming people can't screw up because they have money is something genuinely ridiculous. If that was the case they how was Mclaren's past two cars SO bad despite having all this engineering talent and experience?
Explain the logic of being scared of killing engines if you turn the engine up if you can, I can't. Firstly the engines were dying without being turned up throughout testing already, second, if you can't turn the engine up even to see how it works, how are you going to improve it. How can the engine be fine and mechanically reliable and there aren't any cooling issues yet Ron, Boullier and the Honda guy all say they are basically scared of losing engines if they turn it up.
It doesn't take a genius to listen to engineers saying contradictory statements and then question the validity of such statements.