You are correct. Here's what Bob Bell said.dren wrote:I expect a step up from Renault this season. It could spell well for Red Bull, too. I don't think Renault was that far aft of the front runners based on Red Bull's performances. The biggest gains for the Renault team I'd expect would be in chassis integration.
Can we assume their ERS was on par with the best and the ICE just needed work?
The 2016 Renault was designed with the Mercedes V6 in mind, I think it was around December 2015 time when the deal was finalised. Even if we say mid November to have a contingency when talks started, that is still a big task to switch engines for a Formula which was very reliant on "integration".dren wrote:I expect a step up from Renault this season. It could spell well for Red Bull, too. I don't think Renault was that far aft of the front runners based on Red Bull's performances. The biggest gains for the Renault team I'd expect would be in chassis integration.
Can we assume their ERS was on par with the best and the ICE just needed work?
Yes, I'm expecting both Renault and Mclaren to make a good step against the competition unless somebody really screws up their aero with the new regulations.Quantum wrote:The 2016 Renault was designed with the Mercedes V6 in mind, I think it was around December 2015 time when the deal was finalised. Even if we say mid November to have a contingency when talks started, that is still a big task to switch engines for a Formula which was very reliant on "integration".dren wrote:I expect a step up from Renault this season. It could spell well for Red Bull, too. I don't think Renault was that far aft of the front runners based on Red Bull's performances. The biggest gains for the Renault team I'd expect would be in chassis integration.
Can we assume their ERS was on par with the best and the ICE just needed work?
Could see some really big gains by factoring not only the above in, but the gains Renault have made over this winter with the engine.
Because they decided cons outweight pros.lio007 wrote:Can anybody point out (for me as an engine-dummy) why they stick with their non-split-layout (...)
Isn't that, in itself, a con?Blackout wrote:Split turbo has no real cons, it's just not easy to do.
# ERS system is completely newlio007 wrote:So what do we know about the new PU:
# non-split layout
# nearly 50% efficiency
# 95% of the PU is new