Torso wrote:In 2005 and 2006 Renault won because they had the best engine, the best tyres and the most effective team orders.
Now we see what they can do when they no longer enjoy these advantages...
2005 They were not as powerful(referring to hp) as BMW/Honda. Torque, yes please.
2006, they had one of the best engines. I still believe the Ferrari or even Mercedes engine (when fully developed) were better. The advantage was it didn't need to rev so high to maintain competitiveness. BMW, Ferrari, Mercedes were all stretched out to 20700 - 21000rpm.
Torso wrote:But with the rew-limiter the best side of the engine cannot be used like in the past. Remember Alonso playng with the rew limiter for passing other cars in 2005 and 2006.
Rubbish. They still got mappings/software and air/fuel ratios available to them. Revs is not everything...
manchild wrote:On a contrary - all Renault normally aspirated engines were less powerful and with less max rpm than for example Ferrari engines. They've always relied on torque so limiting revs to 19k probably harmed them the least of all teams.
In terms of development costs for optimal performance at 19k, yes. Actual peak performance? Not sure.
Torso wrote:wrong. in 2005 Ferrari rewed higher..true, but could not exploit it due to stresses created from tyre-wear
bur in 2006 Renault produced more power related to calculated "overrewing". Ferrari caught up by the end of the season, yet as we saw..reliability didn`t match.
Renault was really clever with the potential loop-holes in 2006. I actually didn`t expect that they would make it in 2006 based on their 2005-success based on reliability and other teams poor reliability. But they did...they did manage to build the fastest race-engine of all in 2006 thanks to ingenious use of rew-limiter. And with the superiour Michelins... they could only lose it by themselves.
They could exploit it.... qualifying and inlaps/outlaps
Check out the fastest laps. A good chunk are held by MS.
Torso wrote:Renault was really clever with the potential loop-holes in 2006. I actually didn`t expect that they would make it in 2006 based on their 2005-success based on reliability and other teams poor reliability. But they did...they did manage to build the fastest race-engine of all in 2006 thanks to ingenious use of rew-limiter. And with the superiour Michelins... they could only lose it by themselves.
"Ingenious use of a rew-limiter" Wow Renault pioneered a rev limiter in 2005/2006?
Brainless.....
As always with a tyre war (well most of time, excluding 2002 for example) you got trades of superiority regularly. By season end, even from 3/5 way Bridgestone had the best tyre.
ds.raikkonen wrote:last year Renault R26 had 730bhp...similar to SF..whereas Williams Cosworth had 750bhp(claimed)...but the RS26 was reliable...only one engine failure (at Monza)...there is no doubt that Renault is struggling with Bridgestone tyres..bu they ll turn things around soon..Heikki is da one to look out for
Source for that 730bhp? Hope its not a pre-season figure lol
I'm sure cosworth had more than 750bhp fully developed (even if budget for development was low). Reliable sources say 745+ @ 19800rpm. They revved to 20k in Bahrain easy. Fastest down the straights. I'm pretty sure Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes, Renault are just as powerful (later on, when sorted out with v8 issues). For sure certain BMW was more powerful (info direct from Munich
) than 750bhp
My Opinion on aero:
Aero parts depend alot if they actually work on the car. F2006 had mirror location revolution. RB did it, they went back to the conventional design. Also the R27 "looks" alot sleeker than the R26 as you would expect in development. But they say they are having to work on regaining the lost downforce. Remember in 98, most of the cars had those hideous side wings(later banned), but Mclaren never bothered with them.
Brief: An aero part on one car that makes an improvement is no means to think that the same part will work on another car.