Agreed on 1.gshevlin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:46 amA couple of comments.
1. I doubt that any driver told the FIA or another team about the system (or whatever it is). After all, when Nelson Piquet Jr. finally confessed to being asked to crash in Singapore, although he ended up winning a lot of money from Renault after they libelled him and his father, the whole Crashgate affair ended his time in Formula 1.
I suspect that another team has reported the behavior of the car and drivers to the FIA.
2. The performance benefit of the system, based on the explanations i have read so far, is pretty minimal over an entire race distance. This is not like the (so far not publicly explained) power boost that Ferrari seems to be able to deploy on occasion on race weekends, which clearly has given it a significant advantage, an advantage that has all rival engine suppliers very frustrated. (I suspect that they know WHAT Ferrari is doing, they just don't understand how they are able to do it).
What do you mean? Do the new regs open up development on the MGU-K?
I was reffering to this story. It shows a start of a shift of mindset.JRindt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:22 pmWhat do you mean? Do the new regs open up development on the MGU-K?
If so, that partly explains McLaren’s decision to switch to Mercedes PU. Renault have had a lot of problems with the K.
It's a fascinating read:
there is no conclusive video evidence
RP could not produce any conclusive video evidence
The brake balance indicated on the dash display may change due to the specific operation of a specific Renault system
Renault does not dispute the possibility of a change of brake bias on the dash display without the drivers physical input
based on allegations from a former Renault employee who was not aware of all the pertinent details of Renaults brake control system.
Not kidding, this is like the BS TMD ban using "safety" as a smokescreen, because it was legal according to the tech regs.