Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Cyril Abiteboul (Renault): Redbull chassis also to blame. Disappointed in level of cooperation


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#1 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 December 2014 - 08:03

The managing director of Renault Sport F1 believes that Redbull should also shoulder blame for a subpar chassis this season:

http://www.eurosport...974/story.shtml

 

 

Does the RB10 have the best chassis? "asks the French manager in the columns of the magazine Auto Hebdo, published on Wednesday . " It is said to be very sensitive to adjustments, unbalanced, has a delicate operation of tires. Well, it is true that with more power, you can put more downforce and with more downforce, the chassis gains in stability and in keeping tires. This is why we must get out of this reciprocal permanent indictment to better work together and achieve the best performance in turn, more than the best engine power. "

 

"As soon as we want to enter into a closer relationship, it is very complicated"

Asked how he felt about the union with Red Bull Racing, Cyril Abiteboul does not really show satisfaction. " Let's be clear, this is not good , he considers . We are unable to take our partnership to the level where I would like it to be: in terms of technology, marketing, respect, trust, transparency, positioning ... But I know well and I have a huge respect for what they do and what they built. The problem is probably in this success and in the method. They operate either in the role of the absolute control of what they produce or in that of absolute customer waiting for the supply of finished product delivered, performance and optimal reliability and, if possible cheap. As soon as the we want to enter into a closer relationship, it's very complicated. "

Some couples may very well live well and others less well. For me it is a real disappointment. It is one of the goals I had set my roadmap back in Viry-Châtillon. Certainly, there is progress, but it is marginal , "he concludes.

 

 

I've always been amazed that Horner laid the blame for their performance for 100% at the door of Renault, while it's easy to conclude that the lack of a works relationship will impact on integration and thus chassis design.

Abiteboul goes on to say he's still not happy with the level of cooperation due the distrust that exists.

 

Are Redbull trying too hard to protect their IP at the cost of an optimal relationship with Renault?

No wonder Horner is pushing for a standard engine.



Advertisement

#2 aramos

aramos
  • Member

  • 1,498 posts
  • Joined: December 14

Posted 22 December 2014 - 08:21

From what I saw on track the Red Bull chassis looked incredibly well balanced and generally fast. If you look at its close competitors (Williams, Ferrari) they were generally significantly more of a handful onboard. The Red Bull was also very good in the wet, a hallmark of a good chassis.

 

You can assume Ferrari had similar power outputs (if not higher) and McLaren had superior engine performance, yet neither of them were anywhere close to Red Bull.

 

Maybe the Mercedes was a better chassis too, but the Red Bull was at the least the second best chassis on the grid and would have been far closer with power parity. 


Edited by aramos, 24 December 2014 - 06:52.


#3 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 December 2014 - 08:47

Mr Abiteboul indicates that more is possible, but that their current relationship with Redbull prevents this. That I find significant, as I thought they by now had Works-type relationship.

 

He also mentions marketing. So Renault seem to want more out of this relationship in terms of exposure as well.

 

I think Renault are regretting selling Enstone.



#4 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 22 December 2014 - 09:21

The good ol' days:

 

http://www.dailymoti...de-f1-2010_auto

 

Notice Renault on the rear wing, not Infiniti, and Renault patch on the overalls.  Where did the love go?  :confused:  (infiniti $$$$$$...)

 

Edit - Haven't actually seem that before as I switched off and went to bed after Webber-san lost the WDC.  :lol:


Edited by V8 Fireworks, 22 December 2014 - 09:22.


#5 learningtobelost

learningtobelost
  • Member

  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 December 2014 - 09:43

The good ol' days:

 

http://www.dailymoti...de-f1-2010_auto

 

Notice Renault on the rear wing, not Infiniti, and Renault patch on the overalls.  Where did the love go?  :confused:  (infiniti $$$$$$...)

Renault holds a huge stake in Nissan (close to 50% if memory serves), Infiniti is the luxury arm of Nissan.  I expect that the choice to promote Infiniti on the RBR cars was strategic, as Renault already have a large amount of F1 exposure, and Infiniti's brand values are more in line with what F1 represents.

As to the OP. I think it was as clear as day during the pre-season that Renault and RBR did not have a traditional powerplant / works team  relationship.



#6 SmokeScreen

SmokeScreen
  • Member

  • 191 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 December 2014 - 10:06

Renault holds a huge stake in Nissan (close to 50% if memory serves), Infiniti is the luxury arm of Nissan.  I expect that the choice to promote Infiniti on the RBR cars was strategic, as Renault already have a large amount of F1 exposure, and Infiniti's brand values are more in line with what F1 represents.

As to the OP. I think it was as clear as day during the pre-season that Renault and RBR did not have a traditional powerplant / works team  relationship.

 

Interesting comments from Abiteboul.  Doesn't look like getting resolved in the short term either.  



#7 CHIUNDA

CHIUNDA
  • Member

  • 1,868 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 22 December 2014 - 10:34

From what I saw on track the Red Bull chassis looked incredibly well balanced and generally fast. If you look at its close competitors (Williams, Ferrari) they were generally significantly more of a handful onboard. The Red Bull was also very good in the wet, a hallmark of a good chassis.

 

You can assume Ferrari had similar power outputs (if not higher) and McLaren had superior engine performance, yet neither of them were anywhere close to Red Bull.

 

Maybe the Mercedes was a better chassis too, but the Red Bull was at the least the second best chassis on the grid and wouldn't have been far closer with power parity. 

 

I am starting to think Renault wasn't far from Mercedes power wise.

 



#8 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 22 December 2014 - 10:57

Ooo a Merc fans dream topic.  I find it quite hard to discuss this topic since to me, things were quite clear during the season, from the winter.. the early races.. the mid season and then towards the end.. so I find it hard to discuss it at all.  It'd be easier if there were more grey area, it wouldn't seem so trivial or pedantic.

 

I don't think Renault is 100% to blame though, I don't really know where the engine lies in power vs Merc.  But I do think that it was quite a good chassis and that it was shown at different times through out the year.  There were a few off races but for me most races went well above expectation, for Ricciardo at least.  The rest didn't do much all season but yeah.  Ricciardo actually hounded Lewis in the dry at Monaco in the final stint and finished right on his tail.  They also won in Spa with a Monza spec rear wing.  And were very fast in the wet in Suzuka, as well as most wet sessions through out the whole season.

 

I'm not sure what the exact percentage would be and as always.. seems like a case of seeing what one wants to see.  It's easy in the case of McLaren vs Williams vs Merc, but harder to say with Redbull.



#9 Sash1

Sash1
  • Member

  • 1,290 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:06

Without Red Bull software writers, Renault would have been looking at a huge number of engine failures and underperformance for the whole year. Typically French it's the foreigners fault and not just my half arsed attempt at a hybrid, now just give me my bonus or I will go on strike talk.



#10 aramos

aramos
  • Member

  • 1,498 posts
  • Joined: December 14

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:08

I am starting to think Renault wasn't far from Mercedes power wise.


Nothing to suggest that.

#11 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:16

Ooo a Merc fans dream topic.  I find it quite hard to discuss this topic since to me, things were quite clear during the season, from the winter.. the early races.. the mid season and then towards the end.. so I find it hard to discuss it at all.  It'd be easier if there were more grey area, it wouldn't seem so trivial or pedantic.

 

I don't think Renault is 100% to blame though, I don't really know where the engine lies in power vs Merc.  But I do think that it was quite a good chassis and that it was shown at different times through out the year.  There were a few off races but for me most races went well above expectation, for Ricciardo at least.  The rest didn't do much all season but yeah.  Ricciardo actually hounded Lewis in the dry at Monaco in the final stint and finished right on his tail.  They also won in Spa with a Monza spec rear wing.  And were very fast in the wet in Suzuka, as well as most wet sessions through out the whole season.

 

I'm not sure what the exact percentage would be and as always.. seems like a case of seeing what one wants to see.  It's easy in the case of McLaren vs Williams vs Merc, but harder to say with Redbull.

 

My problem is with Horner who fails to address the shortcomings in the relationship with Renault and is always blaming Renault for the lack of pace. What are your thoughts on that?



#12 Amphicar

Amphicar
  • Member

  • 2,823 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:26

Sounds as if both parties are preparing the ground for a parting of the ways at the end of next season. Red Bull-Honda or Red Bull-Audi in 2016 perhaps?



#13 goingthedistance

goingthedistance
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,471 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:42

I think Red Bull felt the loss of Promodrou. I never thought it looked the best chassis, that was clearly Mercedes (who had already caught up wtih Red Bull in 2013 until they turned their focus fully to 2014). I appreciate that they had to take a lot of downforce off to be vaguely competitive on the straights but at slower circuits like Singapore and Monaco the car just didn't look as well balanced as the Merc. 


Edited by goingthedistance, 22 December 2014 - 11:44.


#14 GhostR

GhostR
  • Member

  • 3,782 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:42

Sounds to me like Abiteboul has been talking to Vettel... ;)

 

I'm sure there's possibly an element of truth in what he says, that the RBR chassis wasn't the world beater it was in previous years. But by the same token, talking it down when it was clearly the second best chassis on the grid for most of the season - and by far and away the strongest Renault car on the grid - is a dangerous move to make. At the end of the day (season), RBR got 2nd in the WCC and 3rd in the WDC running with an uncompetitive engine. Running with an engine that only became semi-competitive after a lot of input from RBR. It wasn't just Red Bull who were unhappy with that engine, they were just the noisiest about it. Lotus have ditched them at the first opportunity, which means Renault will be left with most likely just 2 teams (unless Caterham is rescued), vs the Mercedes 4, 2 Ferrari (highly unlikely Manor show up), and 1 Honda.

 

When you look at it, you could almost argue the only reason RBR have retained the Renault power unit is because there's nothing better available. Mercedes won't supply their biggest rival, Honda have given McLaren exclusivity for 2015, and the Ferrari is no better than the Renault (and again, most likely would refuse to supply RBR anyway).

 

This just increasingly feels to me like a relationship that's heading towards Red Bull sourcing an alternative (eg building their own, or dragging in VAG asap they can get them involved) and then you end up with Renault having no teams at all.



#15 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 December 2014 - 12:00

Sounds to me like Abiteboul has been talking to Vettel...  ;)

 

I'm sure there's possibly an element of truth in what he says, that the RBR chassis wasn't the world beater it was in previous years. But by the same token, talking it down when it was clearly the second best chassis on the grid for most of the season - and by far and away the strongest Renault car on the grid - is a dangerous move to make. At the end of the day (season), RBR got 2nd in the WCC and 3rd in the WDC running with an uncompetitive engine. Running with an engine that only became semi-competitive after a lot of input from RBR. It wasn't just Red Bull who were unhappy with that engine, they were just the noisiest about it. Lotus have ditched them at the first opportunity, which means Renault will be left with most likely just 2 teams (unless Caterham is rescued), vs the Mercedes 4, 2 Ferrari (highly unlikely Manor show up), and 1 Honda.

 

When you look at it, you could almost argue the only reason RBR have retained the Renault power unit is because there's nothing better available. Mercedes won't supply their biggest rival, Honda have given McLaren exclusivity for 2015, and the Ferrari is no better than the Renault (and again, most likely would refuse to supply RBR anyway).

 

This just increasingly feels to me like a relationship that's heading towards Red Bull sourcing an alternative (eg building their own, or dragging in VAG asap they can get them involved) and then you end up with Renault having no teams at all.

 

All fair, but the point he's making and no one seems to address is the level of integration between the two companies. Renault obviously believes there's more performance to be had if they worked together like a Works team. If there was more trust between them.

Even if VAG comes in, RedBull will be very protective of their IP, which stands in the way of collaboration.

 

I think it will only work for Redbull if their chassis is a step ahead of others while the engine is average. or they will have to luck into a PU that is a step ahead of the rest. But they will never maximize the integration with all the performance benefits that it brings.



#16 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 December 2014 - 12:08

I've always been amazed that Horner laid the blame for their performance for 100% at the door of Renault, while it's easy to conclude that the lack of a works relationship will impact on integration and thus chassis design.

Abiteboul goes on to say he's still not happy with the level of cooperation due the distrust that exists.

 

Are Redbull trying too hard to protect their IP at the cost of an optimal relationship with Renault?

No wonder Horner is pushing for a standard engine.

 

-When and where did Horner place 100% blame on Renault for the season? Yes he complained about them lots - as you would do with a supplier who your performance is utterly reliant on, and who freely admit delivering an inferior product to what they agreed on, costing you millions.

 

-Renault themselves had made plenty of positive statements about their 'works' partnership. Until they failed to deliver their side of the bargain (and lets point out that RBR exceeded by far, any other Renault powered teams efforts.

 

Without Red Bull software writers, Renault would have been looking at a huge number of engine failures and underperformance for the whole year. Typically French it's the foreigners fault and not just my half arsed attempt at a hybrid, now just give me my bonus or I will go on strike talk.

 

 

-Absolutely and it assisted Abiteboul's directly at Caterham too...  But he seems to be complaining that they either help too much, or not enough...  :down:

 

 

My problem is with Horner who fails to address the shortcomings in the relationship with Renault and is always blaming Renault for the lack of pace. What are your thoughts on that?

 

-Why is that a problem to you? Why shouldn't a company blame a supplier for failing to make SLAs or deliver promises? Red Bull at their own cost provided significant extra staff and resources, and they (Renault Sport) were still unable to achieve anywhere close to parity.

 

-Any comments on Lotus AMuS claims of 86hp/18kg deficit? No amount of aero or mechanical can overcome this on a power circuit.

 

 

This just increasingly feels to me like a relationship that's heading towards Red Bull sourcing an alternative (eg building their own, or dragging in VAG asap they can get them involved) and then you end up with Renault having no teams at all.

 

 

-I guess he and fellow Frenchmen are edgy about Red Bull parachuting in Ilmor/Mario Illien to fix their woes. He was touted as leading an in-house program for RBR earlier in the season, or a RBR buy out of Renault Sport/Toyota/Cosworth.


Edited by slideways, 22 December 2014 - 12:12.


#17 Buccaneer

Buccaneer
  • Member

  • 61 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 22 December 2014 - 12:08

I have to admit I felt sorry for Renault this season due to the behaviour of Horner and Co.

Compared to the Merc engine Renault screwed up but the way Horner and Co kept criticising Renault in the press after winning 4 WDC's and WCC's was IMO pretty disgusting.  Horner and Co seemed to forgot the sporting ethos of team sport of we win together and we lose together.  Instead of acknowledging the problems and offering positive support to Renault after the years of success together, Redbull took a big dump on them in public at the first sign of choppy waters. No wonder there is signs of distrust.  I've lost a lot of respect for Redbull this season due to how they treat their partners.



#18 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 December 2014 - 12:33

-When and where did Horner place 100% blame on Renault for the season? Yes he complained about them lots - as you would do with a supplier who your performance is utterly reliant on, and who freely admit delivering an inferior product to what they agreed on, costing you millions.

 

 

I can find hundreds of articles where he only talks about Renault being the culprit. I have found no article where he says the chassis side needs to improve as well. No where. 

 

Can you find an article where he does not blame Renault alone? I'd love to see it.



#19 aramos

aramos
  • Member

  • 1,498 posts
  • Joined: December 14

Posted 22 December 2014 - 12:34

I can find hundreds of articles where he only talks about Renault being the culprit. I have found no article where he says the chassis side needs to improve as well. No where. 

 

Can you find an article where he does not blame Renault alone? I'd love to see it.

 

Because the chassis was generally very good. Close to the best if not the best.



Advertisement

#20 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 6,513 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 22 December 2014 - 12:54

I am starting to think Renault wasn't far from Mercedes power wise.

 

 

Why then does Horner and a Lotus engineer claim Reno is down on power?



#21 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 22 December 2014 - 12:54

I think theres some merit to what he says, but the Red Bull chassis was still pretty good. They still ultimately beat Ferrari who were a full works team. I think it was perhaps inevitable that Mercedes was always going to win this year though. They always did their own ERS development unlike Ferrari and RenaultSport, which was probably a bigger advantage than having a works partnership this year. Perhaps also if Renaults turbo was split like the Mercedes, they could run smaller intercoolers and the Red Bulls could then run less cooling/less drag



#22 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 December 2014 - 12:58

I think theres some merit to what he says, but the Red Bull chassis was still pretty good. They still ultimately beat Ferrari who were a full works team. I think it was perhaps inevitable that Mercedes was always going to win this year though. They always did their own ERS development unlike Ferrari and RenaultSport, which was probably a bigger advantage than having a works partnership this year. Perhaps also if Renaults turbo was split like the Mercedes, they could run smaller intercoolers and the Red Bulls could then run less cooling/less drag

 

Word is that the Mercedes ERS is not the best on the grid.



#23 Guizotia

Guizotia
  • Member

  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 December 2014 - 13:26

I can find hundreds of articles where he only talks about Renault being the culprit. I have found no article where he says the chassis side needs to improve as well. No where. 

 

Can you find an article where he does not blame Renault alone? I'd love to see it.

 

It's a general convention that the person making the claim has to provide the evidence.  No need to follow convention of course, but that's what it is.



#24 paulogman

paulogman
  • Member

  • 2,642 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 22 December 2014 - 13:50

Public impression of Horner: whiner who bitches and moans about anything and everything not redbull. Engine, rules aND other teams.

Now backed up by frustration from an integral partner.
I hope Renault drops redbull for 2016

#25 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 December 2014 - 14:04

It's a general convention that the person making the claim has to provide the evidence.  No need to follow convention of course, but that's what it is.

 

The reason I turned it around as it's very easy to find articles blaming Renault. 

 

http://www.auto123.c...es?artid=172953

http://www.crash.net...d-for-2015.html

http://en.espnf1.com...ory/186277.html

http://www.racer.com...br-s-best-years

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/114742

 

It's un-relenting.

 

Whereas I have found '0' articles where Horner takes some of the blame for the under performance. Not establishing an optimal work-relationship with Renault, which is where I believe the Mercedes chassis and engine departments have excelled.



#26 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 791 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 22 December 2014 - 14:16

I'm disappointed in both sides of this. Why did not any of the parties realize that integration was going to be key in the new formula? That stuff should have been sorted about two years ago. Both Renault's and RBR's aproach to the new regulation have been unprofessional IMO



#27 ninetyzero

ninetyzero
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 22 December 2014 - 15:00

How Red Bull's relationship to Renault works:

 

Red Bull win: It's all down to the chassis

Red Bull don't win: It's all down to the engine

 

In fact Red Bull used to slag off the Renault engine even when they were winning. I'm not actually sure what Renault get out of this relationship. They're like a battered housewife who keeps going back to their abusive husband because 'this time it'll be different'. :well:



#28 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 6,841 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 22 December 2014 - 15:11

As a constructor, what more does Red Bull Gmbh have to achieve in F1?  Why not go back to just being a sponsor?


Edited by Nathan, 22 December 2014 - 15:14.


#29 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,156 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 22 December 2014 - 15:18

I'd like to understand what do Red Bull and Renault have to gain by slagging each other off in the press.



#30 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 22 December 2014 - 16:01

Because the chassis was generally very good. Close to the best if not the best.

Better than the Merc ? Really ?



#31 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 22 December 2014 - 16:46

I'm disappointed in both sides of this. Why did not any of the parties realize that integration was going to be key in the new formula? That stuff should have been sorted about two years ago. Both Renault's and RBR's aproach to the new regulation have been unprofessional IMO

But you can't blame Renault for not integrating their engine. That's RedBull's job as a constructor.



#32 kevinracefan

kevinracefan
  • Member

  • 2,729 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 22 December 2014 - 17:41

it appears most of you in this thread conveniently don't remember that Renault has been down on power for several years... the chassis made up for it...

 

this year's chassis was as good as merc's, (after the cooling issues were fixed) but the (even larger) HP disadvantage could not be overcome with more downforce and handling...

 

BUT.. it was a good enough chassis to hold off the rest of the merc lumps, wasn't it...



#33 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 22 December 2014 - 17:54

it appears most of you in this thread conveniently don't remember that Renault has been down on power for several years... the chassis made up for it...

 

this year's chassis was as good as merc's, (after the cooling issues were fixed) but the (even larger) HP disadvantage could not be overcome with more downforce and handling...

 

BUT.. it was a good enough chassis to hold off the rest of the merc lumps, wasn't it...

 

That's a myth. 

Engine power is also not the only relevant performance indicator. Heat rejection for example!?

And what about reports that Renault had an inherent advantage with cold blowing?



#34 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 7,054 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 22 December 2014 - 18:07

it appears most of you in this thread conveniently don't remember that Renault has been down on power for several years... the chassis made up for it...

 

this year's chassis was as good as merc's, (after the cooling issues were fixed) but the (even larger) HP disadvantage could not be overcome with more downforce and handling...

 

BUT.. it was a good enough chassis to hold off the rest of the merc lumps, wasn't it...

 

 

 

Ahh, LOL? They really were not. Renault has been granted opportunities to upgrade their engine several times the past 5 years. They preferred to do that on the initiative and guidance of Newey, to aid the exhaust blowing design concept. It is what messed up Vettel's driving this past season. Of course, Horner was constantly whining about their HP deficit. This year's chassis was behind Merc's. It will be behind  next season too.



#35 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 22 December 2014 - 19:14

it appears most of you in this thread conveniently don't remember that Renault has been down on power for several years... the chassis made up for it...

 

this year's chassis was as good as merc's, (after the cooling issues were fixed) but the (even larger) HP disadvantage could not be overcome with more downforce and handling...

 

BUT.. it was a good enough chassis to hold off the rest of the merc lumps, wasn't it...

Where does this myth come from that Red Bull can do no wrong, and if they do not succeed it's automatically the fault of others ? Is there ANY evidence for this ? It just sound like total bias to me. Red Bull fans need to learn to accept that their car is not always going to be the best on the grid. 



#36 kevinracefan

kevinracefan
  • Member

  • 2,729 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 22 December 2014 - 19:14

^^you REALLY think Ricciardo won 3 races with a **** P/U AND... I say AND a **** chassis??

 

that's hilarious...

 

if it were behind the merc chassis, it wasn't by more than a couple %


Edited by kevinracefan, 22 December 2014 - 19:15.


#37 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 22 December 2014 - 20:32

^^you REALLY think Ricciardo won 3 races with a **** P/U AND... I say AND a **** chassis??

 

that's hilarious...

 

if it were behind the merc chassis, it wasn't by more than a couple %

Did I say that Red Bull had a **** chassis ? Please feel free to quote my words where I said that. 



#38 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 23,842 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 December 2014 - 21:15

Red Bull- 2nd best chassis with the second best engine.

It shouldn't be a surprise that Renault may want to defend their corner against being Horner's favourite scapegoat over the years.

#39 Kulturen

Kulturen
  • Member

  • 1,020 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 22 December 2014 - 22:17

Nothing in what he said suggests they weren't down on power a lot or that RBR wasn't the best chassis. He was saying that the relationship did not allow them to work to get the best out of it and that they could have helped the engine more with the chassis.

 

But hey, don't let reality or...reading comprehension stop you guys from continuing your bizzare fantasy that RBR didn't once again have the best chassis (which is plain to see to anyone paying attention).



Advertisement

#40 Peter0Scandlyn

Peter0Scandlyn
  • Member

  • 727 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 23 December 2014 - 02:26

I hope Renault drops redbull for 2016

 

Where're you heading with this?

Renault drops Red Bull. Presumably that'd mean Toro Rosso too.

Then where - Caterham? Oopps.

Lotus? Don't think so...

Options are looking thin.



#41 paulogman

paulogman
  • Member

  • 2,642 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 23 December 2014 - 03:09

Renault don't need to be in f1

#42 aramos

aramos
  • Member

  • 1,498 posts
  • Joined: December 14

Posted 23 December 2014 - 03:13

Red Bull should just build their own engines at this point. They have two teams to give them economics of scale, they could probably secure a customer team too. We know they will just buy the best people until they succeed. 



#43 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 23 December 2014 - 03:55

Renault don't need to be in f1


Especially with Nissan now in LeMans

#44 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 December 2014 - 05:08



How Red Bull's relationship to Renault works:

 

Red Bull win: It's all down to the chassis

Red Bull don't win: It's all down to the engine

 

In fact Red Bull used to slag off the Renault engine even when they were winning. I'm not actually sure what Renault get out of this relationship. They're like a battered housewife who keeps going back to their abusive husband because 'this time it'll be different'. :well:

 

I guess 8 championships wasn't enough?

 

 

 

 

And RBR have struggled in the speed traps for years. At times there was parity, and other times some of it was opting to run more points or shorter gearing but it's kind of amusing that anyone could pretend like the Renault was on par all those years. With the overrun saga they could get some back in terms of traction and power down but top speeds were still hurting.


Edited by slideways, 23 December 2014 - 05:08.


#45 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 December 2014 - 05:20

Ahh, LOL? They really were not. Renault has been granted opportunities to upgrade their engine several times the past 5 years. They preferred to do that on the initiative and guidance of Newey, to aid the exhaust blowing design concept. It is what messed up Vettel's driving this past season. Of course, Horner was constantly whining about their HP deficit. This year's chassis was behind Merc's. It will be behind  next season too.

 

 

You are in a fantasy land my friend. The developments on blown exhausts were separate to the output parity upgrades submitted to FIA. Mercedes and Ferrari did it too! Although that might derail your narrative. 



#46 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 December 2014 - 05:34

You are in a fantasy land my friend. The developments on blown exhausts were separate to the output parity upgrades submitted to FIA. Mercedes and Ferrari did it too! Although that might derail your narrative. 

Please stop with the loaded terms, as you are not coming from any kind of middle ground, yourself. You have obviously a right to your opinions, and I'm not about to try to change them, but please stop describing very middle ground opinions that differ from your minority opinions as 'narrative'.



#47 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 23 December 2014 - 05:39

Mercedes had a bigger chassis advantage than an engine advantage. 

 

That is why they generally had a bigger advantage in the race than in qualifying. 



#48 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 23 December 2014 - 05:59

Red Bull should just build their own engines at this point. They have two teams to give them economics of scale, they could probably secure a customer team too. We know they will just buy the best people until they succeed. 

Good luck with that.

Frankly, I think that all the other teams would love this to happen. Ferrari would probably even be willing to set up a crowd funding scheme to make this happen and donate a million pounds themselves. Money ALWAYS buys success in F1, just ask Toyota or BAR or Honda.



#49 Rurouni

Rurouni
  • Member

  • 768 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 23 December 2014 - 06:43

Assuming the relationship between Renault and RB is true, then it would be hard to top Mercedes. Since this is a new engine, you can play a lot with it to gain an advantage. This relationship prevent that to a certain extent. If we look at the split turbo, that idea probably came because the engine and chassis/aero department working closely. If RB just ask Renault to make an engine that fits their car, then Renault must adapt their engine to run within the RB aero philosophy. Likewise, if Renault do make an engine that is capable of beating Merc but the aero must be compromised to fit, then the development would be wasted. In the tail end of V8 era, the engine spec was already stable, thus RB can somewhat ignore engine development and focused on improving the aero. This time they can't do that if they want to match Mercedes.

Edit: clearing things

Edited by Rurouni, 23 December 2014 - 07:09.


#50 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 24 December 2014 - 04:45


Please stop with the loaded terms, as you are not coming from any kind of middle ground, yourself. You have obviously a right to your opinions, and I'm not about to try to change them, but please stop describing very middle ground opinions that differ from your minority opinions as 'narrative'.

 

 

You are in a fantasy land my friend. The developments on blown exhausts were separate to the output parity upgrades submitted to FIA. Mercedes and Ferrari did it too! Although that might derail your narrative. 

 
 

I'll try to tone it down a bit but this is not opinion. And I am not the one cruising into a thread, making an incorrect loaded statement that is motivated by my dislike of someone (Horner/RBR) like szoelloe did here. He/she is more often than not on point. But claiming that Renault's parity upgrades were driven by Newey and aimed towards exhaust blowing is just having a laugh. The parity upgrade in 2010 was a result of the previous freeze being too tight to the point where Renault were dropping behind on power considerably. They learned from that with the 2014 freeze, providing the windows every year to keep the engines somewhat within range of each other. The 2009/10 Renault changes provided a gain of around 30 hp, leaving them still up to 10 hp behind Mercedes (maybe not so much - f-duct and higher than normal rear wing confused top speeds a bit).

The big steps up in blowing came later and were achieved via software, mid season, going around the regulations. FIA was against it from the start and once it became an arms race they tried to ban it, until giving up and instead finding a parity solution between the different overrun modes of each engine.

 

 

I can find hundreds of articles where he only talks about Renault being the culprit. I have found no article where he says the chassis side needs to improve as well. No where. 

 

Can you find an article where he does not blame Renault alone? I'd love to see it.

 

 

Sorry I missed your reply before. Giving Renault a hard time and saying they could have achieved more with a better product is a lot different than placing 100% of blame for your season at their door. An example is the Melbourne DQ where (eventually - after sooking for long enough) RBR owned up and took the blame for the flow rates rather than place it on Renault. There were plenty of other stuff ups over the year they took ownership for. There are comments from Horner / RBR complimenting Renault too after wins this year on their turnaround etc. which I guess don't count either. I guess it is a matter of wording.

 

Anyway I guess it's a losing battle for anyone playing a devil's advocate on these - or any RBR - threads. People want to come in, shove their pitchfork in a few times, and move on to the next thread.


Edited by slideways, 24 December 2014 - 04:55.