Red Bull Renault RB11 speculation thread

[Mesteño]

they didn't win it in a straight fight.

Racing is straight fight, car problems are important factor in racing specially with new PU.

[ME4ME]

Renault about their 2015 engine: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117480

[Blackout]

The point is that despite the strategic mistakes Renault did, their lack of experience regarding some parts of the PU, their lack of resources etc, they managed to achieve nice things in 2014.
So Imagine if they learn from their mistakes... They both have a big progression margin, partly because they arent in the same boat as Ferrari and Mercedes.

I mean the fact that:
-Renault didnt/couldnt devlope it's PU around a specific chassis like Ferrari and Merc did
-Renault wasted time and money working with 4 different cars while the other were focused on a sole car
-RedBull and Renault were developing their 2013 car/engine* till the end (*yes i'm talking about the 'frozen' V8)
-had smaller resources than the others (especially Renault compared to Mercedes)
-Viry had less experience than the others regarding ERS
-->the Renault PU is certainly heavier, more cumbersome and more difficult to package, generates more drag and more lag, eats more ballast compared to a Merc architecture etc

So imagine if Renault
-puts more resources on this PU (that's what they are doing now; 23 dynos, more people involved etc),
-work with RBR closely (that's what they are doing now)
-Apply all the lessons they learned with the ERS in 2014
-->and produce a more compact, a more powerful and a more derivable PU, that uses smaller rads and puts less stress on the other parts of the car...
They can make big steps forward and even reduce the gap.

[dren]

There is likely more to gain with the Red Bull - Renault combination than Mercedes has to gain. So yes, theoretically Red Bull - Renault should close the gap a bit. I'm still expecting half a second between Mercedes and the rest.

They had all sorts of testing issues last year. If they wait until the last minute to slap the car together, they could have issues once again. If the Renault PU is just about all new, it could very well have teething issues once again. I am not expecting anything like last year though.

[bonjon1979]

they didn't win it in a straight fight.

Racing is straight fight, car problems are important factor in racing specially with new PU.

I'm not sure you understand what the post was about. Of course, whoever wins, wins but the implication of the post I was replying to was that the Red bull was on terms with the merc with regard to speed at certain events as proved by results such as Hungary. I would argue it proved nothing of the sort. It proved that Merc suffered some reliability issues and poor luck with regard to safety cars rather than the Red Bull being on terms with regard to out and out speed. In 1988 Ferrari secured a 1-2 at Monza, does that mean they were anywhere near the mclaren in terms of performance? Of course not.

[ME4ME]

They had all sorts of testing issues last year. If they wait until the last minute to slap the car together, they could have issues once again. If the Renault PU is just about all new, it could very well have teething issues once again. I am not expecting anything like last year though.

I fully agree to that! But even if they run into some small issues, I think it's fully worth it and think it was wise for them to really think things through this winter, and design a good, developable car. The same goes for Renault and their 2015 PU. It has to be a massive improvement in performance. Reliability they can fix in-season without using any tokens.

[PlatinumZealot]

The point is that despite the strategic mistakes Renault did, their lack of experience regarding some parts of the PU, their lack of resources etc, they managed to achieve nice things in 2014.
So Imagine if they learn from their mistakes... They both have a big progression margin, partly because they arent in the same boat as Ferrari and Mercedes.

I mean the fact that:
-Renault didnt/couldnt devlope it's PU around a specific chassis like Ferrari and Merc did
-Renault wasted time and money working with 4 different cars while the other were focused on a sole car
-RedBull and Renault were developing their 2013 car/engine* till the end (*yes i'm talking about the 'frozen' V8)
-had smaller resources than the others (especially Renault compared to Mercedes)
-Viry had less experience than the others regarding ERS
-->the Renault PU is certainly heavier, more cumbersome and more difficult to package, generates more drag and more lag, eats more ballast compared to a Merc architecture etc

So imagine if Renault
-puts more resources on this PU (that's what they are doing now; 23 dynos, more people involved etc),
-work with RBR closely (that's what they are doing now)
-Apply all the lessons they learned with the ERS in 2014
-->and produce a more compact, a more powerful and a more derivable PU, that uses smaller rads and puts less stress on the other parts of the car...
They can make big steps forward and even reduce the gap.

Agreed. I think Renault, much more so Redbull are legitimate threats for race wins.

[Mesteño]

they didn't win it in a straight fight.

Racing is straight fight, car problems are important factor in racing specially with new PU.

I'm not sure you understand what the post was about. Of course, whoever wins, wins but the implication of the post I was replying to was that the Red bull was on terms with the merc with regard to speed at certain events as proved by results such as Hungary. I would argue it proved nothing of the sort. It proved that Merc suffered some reliability issues and poor luck with regard to safety cars rather than the Red Bull being on terms with regard to out and out speed. In 1988 Ferrari secured a 1-2 at Monza, does that mean they were anywhere near the mclaren in terms of performance? Of course not.

Yes but they won races three times. It is not like Force India was over there in that moment and surprisingly won. Red Bull won in race three times and they were not even the second car. And there are plenty of reasons to think that they will be nearer this year, as Blackout well stated.

That is being a competitor and that makes their wins fair, and not Mercedes defeats.

[bonjon1979]

I'm not sure you understand what the post was about. Of course, whoever wins, wins but the implication of the post I was replying to was that the Red bull was on terms with the merc with regard to speed at certain events as proved by results such as Hungary. I would argue it proved nothing of the sort. It proved that Merc suffered some reliability issues and poor luck with regard to safety cars rather than the Red Bull being on terms with regard to out and out speed. In 1988 Ferrari secured a 1-2 at Monza, does that mean they were anywhere near the mclaren in terms of performance? Of course not.[/quote]

Yes but they won races three times. It is not like Force India was over there in that moment and surprisingly won. Red Bull won in race three times and they were not even the second car. And there are plenty of reasons to think that they will be nearer this year, as Blackout well stated.

That is being a competitor and that makes their wins fair, and not Mercedes defeats.[/quote]

Yeah, not sure what you're getting at, maybe I've misunderstood your initial point. Whatever. Red bull's success or not lies in two things. The tyres and the lump in the back because we know the chassis will be up there.

[Richard]

Posts about legitimacy of wins and my favourite driver could have walked it (I can walk a race track too, but I'd be unlikely to win at that pace) have gone. At the end of the day it's the points that count. Talking of luck and whether points are deserved has a whiff of fanboyism.

Please can we get back to talking about the car, that's the topic? With regards to RB's car, they were the only team with a car in position to grasp opportunities for a win when the faster team had reliability problems. Look up what some chap called Aesop had to say about tortoises and hares.

So staying on topic, maybe RB will develop their car to close the performance gap so they can take advantage of less obvious opportunities and get more wins & podiums. For all we know they might develop the car with enough performance to make their own opportunities and put Merc on the defensive sometimes.

How might/could the car be developed is what we're here to talk about. That's mod speak for further posts about deserving points will be deleted

[Artur Craft]

So imagine if Renault
-puts more resources on this PU (that's what they are doing now; 23 dynos, more people involved etc),
-work with RBR closely (that's what they are doing now)
-Apply all the lessons they learned with the ERS in 2014
-->and produce a more compact, a more powerful and a more derivable PU, that uses smaller rads and puts less stress on the other parts of the car...
They can make big steps forward and even reduce the gap.

“There are very few carry over pieces between the 2014 and 2015 power units,” said chief technical officer Rob White. He admitted the engine manufacturer needs to make big gains following its struggles last year.

“First and foremost we need to run reliably, be quick and closer to front,” he said. “We have made a significant step forward relative from 2014 and, although it is hard to quantify where we will be relative to the competition, what we can say is that we are on course to achieve our own performance objectives.”

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/01/29/f ... d-up-2901/

Also, 850HP is claimed for the 2015 PU. In an initial Red Bulletin of last year, they said the combustion engined produced 640HP. So, if true, the gain is of 50HP

[toraabe]

The big question is... Will Renault be able to use the MGU-H more directly than last year ?. Hopefully yes. And to do that, they need a far more efficient exhaust system to get as much as possible energy into the turbine. Not only to create boost for the compressor, but the rest has to go into the MGU-H. So instead of letting waste energy through the wastegate, let the MGU-H control the rpm to control the boost pressure and harvest as much as possible energy that way. The only solution will be a Log manifold with as short pipes as possible. The power you loose through this manifold is far less than what you gain through the turbine and the MGU-H and what you will be able to deliver direct to the MGU-K..

[Juzh]

The power you loose through this manifold is far less than what you gain through the turbine and the MGU-H and what you will be able to deliver direct to the MGU-K..

Is this a fact? Source? I know i've read about that, but how reliable is this information?

[dren]

Renault stated a revised exhaust system, so I'm leaning towards a log style.

[Blackout]

Log manifolds + classic turbo layout => the compressor is sandwiched between two very hot manifolds. Interesting.
850hp => 43% thermal efficiency which is hard to believe (Williams confirms in the last F1 racing that fuel heat content is around 43MJ/kg)