That conveniently ignores that Renault, by their own admission, sat on their hands until the end of the season - if you were RBR, surely you'd be lighting a fire under them when you discovered their total lack of progress too!Moose wrote:Not the way I read it at all.
I read it as "RedBull told us we had to make bigger gains than we had got, and told us that we should bring untested stuff to the track to achieve that. We did that, and the result was that the untested stuff broke."
Who said that Renault sat on their hands?djos wrote:That conveniently ignores that Renault, by their own admission, sat on their hands until the end of the season - if you were RBR, surely you'd be lighting a fire under them when you discovered their total lack of progress too!Moose wrote:Not the way I read it at all.
I read it as "RedBull told us we had to make bigger gains than we had got, and told us that we should bring untested stuff to the track to achieve that. We did that, and the result was that the untested stuff broke."
They admited it:Moose wrote:Who said that Renault sat on their hands?djos wrote: That conveniently ignores that Renault, by their own admission, sat on their hands until the end of the season - if you were RBR, surely you'd be lighting a fire under them when you discovered their total lack of progress too!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118171"We have been pushing an aggressive and late development programme over the winter," said Abiteboul.
"We can do a better job on the engine side but it is not something you can do in one winter."
So how come ferrari can do it?Abiteboul wrote: "We can do a better job on the engine side but it is not something you can do in one winter."
What are renault's objectives anyway? To just sit back with last's year PU and wait for 2016? It's only understandable red bull pushed for rapid development. What is the alternative? To have a reliable PU, but one which is 100 bhp down? At least RB tried to accomplish something, whereas it seems renault is contempt with stagnation.
well it's true, he is always complaining about the engine, even when he is winning.WilliamsF1 wrote: 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."
You would say that as you are Red Bull fan.Juzh wrote: I call BS on E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G. renault will say or has said since pre-season testing in 2014.
you are kidding right?FoxHound wrote: Did Renault have a sub-par engine last year? No.
They've admitted they sat on their hands till winter and then scrambled to catch up, doesn't get any clearer than that - Renault = 100% responsible!FoxHound wrote: The problem was/is, that Renault did not test these upgrades so as to meet the demands of Red Bull.
Renault are where the buck stops for sure, but a fool would apportion 100% blame to Renault when viewing their supply conditions.
Couldn't agree more. Spot on. +1Juzh wrote:So how come ferrari can do it?Abiteboul wrote: "We can do a better job on the engine side but it is not something you can do in one winter."
I call BS on E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G. renault will say or has said since pre-season testing in 2014.
Clearly, Mr Abiteboul is privy to the figures. He isn't hiding, far from it:“Our figures have shown that the laptime deficit between Red Bull and Mercedes in Melbourne was equally split between driveability issues, engine performance and chassis performance. It’s therefore the overall package that needs some help and we have been working with the team to move forward.”
And some light at the end of the tunnel:Australia certainly wasn’t an easy weekend and we fell short of our own expectations, and those of our clients. We need to work together to understand our issues, both within the Power Unit and the chassis.
This business of "100%" Renault at fault needs to be buried. It's not founded in anything other than hyperbole.“We’ve been particularly aggressive in development and we should see the results a lot more clearly in Malaysia, particularly since we have had the opportunity to refine the PU using the data from Australia. Work is still ongoing but even now we are in a completely different place to where we finished Melbourne.
Yes. Because renault's winning had nothing to do with renault's performance and everything to do with merc's self-destructing.FoxHound wrote: Was it the best when Renault powered Red Bull won 3 times?
except the fact remains other mercedes or ferrari powered teams weren't the ones picking up the pieces, but it was RedBull with RenaultJuzh wrote:Yes. Because renault's winning had nothing to do with renault's performance and everything to do with merc's self-destructing.FoxHound wrote: Was it the best when Renault powered Red Bull won 3 times?
