1068 replies to this topic

[Ferrari2183]

Because that's the only way (in theory) they can get changes to the engine through. I still think the FIA made a mistake when they allowed Ferrari to update their engine a couple of seasons ago after they created a self-induced problem. What they should have been told to do is revert back to the previously reliable components, and same could then be said to Renault. The engine has been reliable enough for several seasons, so playing the reliability card should be laughed off the court.

What I was getting at is that if this maps saga is a non-issue as stated by Permane and Allison then pushing so hard based on reliability is needless.

Revert to the old maps then if it is such a non issue and be done with it.

[Clatter]

What I was getting at is that if this maps saga is a non-issue as stated by Permane and Allison then pushing so hard based on reliability is needless.

Revert to the old maps then if it is such a non issue and be done with it.

OK. That's because it's an obvious performance issue, but they can't say that.

[apoka]

Without saying who is at fault, I feel that lately most rule clarifications are not really favouring RB. My gut feeling is also that the engine map clarification will hurt them more than they admit at the moment. AMuS might be right that they didn't have Newey at the latest test, because they want him to focus on car upgrades working around that issue (possibly for the Spanish GP since it is too late to change the Australia upgrade package - if they have to change the rear design, it could be a huge upgrade).

[boldhakka]

What I was getting at is that if this maps saga is a non-issue as stated by Permane and Allison then pushing so hard based on reliability is needless.

Revert to the old maps then if it is such a non issue and be done with it.

What are the costs or downsides to pushing so hard? Lost credibility with other teams, and/or lower likelihood of granting future requests?

Otherwise, if there are no clear downsides, it's just a few letters back and forth with the potential for a few points increase in rear downforce during corner entry. It would be remiss of Horner to not try to push this through.

[fabr68]

Reliability problems with new Renault 2013 engine maps?

Easy solution, go back to reliable engine maps.

[Ferrari2183]

What are the costs or downsides to pushing so hard? Lost credibility with other teams, and/or lower likelihood of granting future requests?

Otherwise, if there are no clear downsides, it's just a few letters back and forth with the potential for a few points increase in rear downforce during corner entry. It would be remiss of Horner to not try to push this through.

Permane and Allison say it is not a big deal and won't affect performance. We know the engine in its previous guise is reliable too.

So which is it?

I scheme that this ruling is hurting 1 of the 3 teams more than they're letting on and hence this is still being pursued. The other engine manufacturers as well as the FIA should tell them to get f?@!£d.

[BigCHrome]

Weren't Renault the first to play the 'reliability' card in the homologation era? I know its been happening more than a couple years. I remember Mclaren got a significant update in 2008 around Silverstone based on the same argument that gave them a reported 25hp or so.

Ferrari had "reliability updates" done to it's engine during the winter of 2008.

Renault/RBR certainly were the whiniest because of a supposed frozen-in power shortage, and IIRC they at least were the first going on about "engine parity". (Edit: and they thought about going with Ferrari for a while, and give the Renaults to TR). FIA was open to unfreezing the engines in a limited way: not for Renault to increase power, but for the other manufacturers to detune. I think that did not happen, and FIA gave Renault a low-key way to increase power via reliability improvements (edit: and back then I was in favor, because initially Renault really was down on power, and freezing that forever would have been insane. But ...). Of course Renault kept their fuel economy and driveability advantages, and I would not be surprised if they sneaked in some of their blowing/map variability. IIRC it was Ferrari, again, who took longest to notice what was going on, and then they suddenly had a lot of engine failures in spring 2010, which probably were caused by "reliability" upgrades and followed by more reliability upgrades.

Found an article that seems to give a reasonable historic overview (though I did not check for veracity of the details):
http://www.rachf1.co...undisputed.html

Yep it's a complete disgrace. Renaults have superior torque at low RPMs, superior fuel consumption and smaller cooling requirements. Yet when they got the extra HP they weren't forced to tune back those aspects of their engine. FIA once again.

[Clatter]

What are the costs or downsides to pushing so hard? Lost credibility with other teams, and/or lower likelihood of granting future requests?

Otherwise, if there are no clear downsides, it's just a few letters back and forth with the potential for a few points increase in rear downforce during corner entry. It would be remiss of Horner to not try to push this through.

Depends on how heavily they have designed down that route. They might have taken the car into a blind alley which could take several races to recover from.

[H2H]

Yep it's a complete disgrace. Renaults have superior torque at low RPMs, superior fuel consumption and smaller cooling requirements. Yet when they got the extra HP they weren't forced to tune back those aspects of their engine. FIA once again.

The linked article is actually rather nice but of course lacks, as it is natural, key sources and goes a little bit off track in the middle. Yes RBR got a lot out of Renault despite being down on HP according to pretty much everybody and profited from other qualities of the engine. However Renault was arguably the least reliable of the top engines and certainly not only due to Newys packaging as we have seen in recent yeras. The 09 titles were lost in no small part due to the vastly inferior performance and reliabilty compared to the Merc power of Brawn and in 2010 and 2012 we saw relatively many more Renault failures then Mercedes ones.

Now they arguably a fact of key importance was that from 2010 Renault really did work hard with RBR to get explore the limits of the rules in others, not yet 'frozen' areas were they weren't behind. With hindsight the integrated DDD and the EBD coupled with clever engine mappings were very important elements to give RBR better performance in those slow corners in which it had troubles compared to Brawn GP. Thanks to RBR their engine mappings were put to the best use as no other team developed the rear end around that effect. And obviously this man is once again correct:

“ We win together and we lose together, Its the team, its the engine and its combination that puts us in that position in the first place and without them we wouldn’t have the luxury to even complain” - Sebastian Vettel

[SpaMaster]

What I was getting at is that if this maps saga is a non-issue as stated by Permane and Allison then pushing so hard based on reliability is needless.

Revert to the old maps then if it is such a non issue and be done with it.

It may be a non-issue for Lotus, but not for Red Bull and hence Renault. Lotus is not pushing for this map.

[Vesuvius]

Red Bull and Renault said to sport bild that new maps had no better gains at all and now they are back to last years maps and they work perfectly, so end of story and we can move on .

[maverick69]

Red Bull and Renault said to sport bild that new maps had no better gains at all and now they are back to last years maps and they work perfectly, so end of story and we can move on .

Sounds like they've employed Cartman as their press officer.

If you so much as even fart in F1 it costs you about 10 grand...... They must have been on to something.

[Ferrari2183]

Red Bull and Renault said to sport bild that new maps had no better gains at all and now they are back to last years maps and they work perfectly, so end of story and we can move on .

This is just posturing in an attempt to get it through on reliability grounds.

[BigCHrome]

The linked article is actually rather nice but of course lacks, as it is natural, key sources and goes a little bit off track in the middle. Yes RBR got a lot out of Renault despite being down on HP according to pretty much everybody and profited from other qualities of the engine. However Renault was arguably the least reliable of the top engines and certainly not only due to Newys packaging as we have seen in recent yeras. The 09 titles were lost in no small part due to the vastly inferior performance and reliabilty compared to the Merc power of Brawn and in 2010 and 2012 we saw relatively many more Renault failures then Mercedes ones.

Now they arguably a fact of key importance was that from 2010 Renault really did work hard with RBR to get explore the limits of the rules in others, not yet 'frozen' areas were they weren't behind. With hindsight the integrated DDD and the EBD coupled with clever engine mappings were very important elements to give RBR better performance in those slow corners in which it had troubles compared to Brawn GP. Thanks to RBR their engine mappings were put to the best use as no other team developed the rear end around that effect. And obviously this man is once again correct:

“ We win together and we lose together, Its the team, its the engine and its combination that puts us in that position in the first place and without them we wouldn’t have the luxury to even complain” - Sebastian Vettel

Because McLaren didn't have reliability problems with their fuel pumps (a Mercedes part) last year as well, right? Oh wait, they did.

[SRK]

Red Bull and Renault said to sport bild that new maps had no better gains at all and now they are back to last years maps and they work perfectly, so end of story and we can move on .

This topic is powered by hope, not fact. As long as Mercedes powered/Lewis teams will be mercilessly destroyed through Renault gang, this thread will be crowded ;)

[KnucklesAgain]

This topic is powered by hope, not fact. As long as Mercedes powered/Lewis teams will be mercilessly destroyed through Renault gang, this thread will be crowded ;)

By your logic:
Every interest in and discussion of technical developments and controversies should be forbidden.
AMuS, one of the worlds leading sources of F1 news and the biggest car mag in Vettel's home country, is shaking from fear of a 4th consecutive WDC for their hero, and desperately hopes that the RBR is slowed down.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 07 March 2013 - 22:12.

[H2H]

Because McLaren didn't have reliability problems with their fuel pumps (a Mercedes part) last year as well, right? Oh wait, they did.

So which part of 'relative inferior reliability' do you not understand?

[BigCHrome]

So which part of 'relative inferior reliability' do you not understand?

I understand "arguably the least reliable of the top engines" very well.

[SRK]

By your logic:
Every interest in and discussion of technical developments and controversies should be forbidden.
AMuS, one of the worlds leading sources of F1 news and the biggest car mag in Vettel's home country, is shaking from fear of a 4th consecutive WDC for their hero, and desperately hopes that the RBR is lowed down.

Forbidden by my logic? I didn't write anything in this tone. Hope isn't bad, is free and will be very useful for you in next few months ;)

AMuS... Daimler-Benz, not Vettel is one of their greatest business partner.