Of course you can say they lack reliability. Maybe Reanult should use a new engine for every race, that way they'll have perfect reliability since there'll be no PU issues on track.GhostF1 wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018, 09:26I am actually impressed with how many, clearly ill informed, F1 fans there are on this forum. Can we please stick to facts, not veiled half truths to prove points? Honda has had 1, count it, One DNF from a PU issue. Round 1. In Australia. On Gasly's car. After a pretty big jump over a curb to boot. Anyone using "look at Honda's PU total count" as evidence they lack reliability... it proves nothing except for that person is foolish and most likely trolling. Anyway. back to and staying on Renault..
Saw this on Renault's twitter. Top Trumps with the RS18 against the Shinkansen.
https://ibb.co/nc1opK
683kW... 916hp. I know crude but frighteningly close to those "estimates" AMuS made.. but let's discuss..
Jesus. Sour.Benii6 wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018, 16:15Of course you can say they lack reliability. Maybe Reanult should use a new engine for every race, that way they'll have perfect reliability since there'll be no PU issues on track.GhostF1 wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018, 09:26I am actually impressed with how many, clearly ill informed, F1 fans there are on this forum. Can we please stick to facts, not veiled half truths to prove points? Honda has had 1, count it, One DNF from a PU issue. Round 1. In Australia. On Gasly's car. After a pretty big jump over a curb to boot. Anyone using "look at Honda's PU total count" as evidence they lack reliability... it proves nothing except for that person is foolish and most likely trolling. Anyway. back to and staying on Renault..
Saw this on Renault's twitter. Top Trumps with the RS18 against the Shinkansen.
https://ibb.co/nc1opK
683kW... 916hp. I know crude but frighteningly close to those "estimates" AMuS made.. but let's discuss..
But then again I'm just an ill informed fan.
source: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13926 ... ault-slumpWhen asked if he feels Renault would have been better off taking the C-spec engine as its third powerunit with the benefit of hindsight, Sainz responded: "If it comes without reliability, no.
"The team is fully sure that with our fuel it is just not reliable enough, so I fully back the team with whatever decision they take.
"I just think we need more power, which we don't have, and we don't get it for whatever reason. If we wanted to be in Q3 in Japan we just needed more power, and Honda has showed that it is possible."
How did you get that conclusion from an article with Sainz talking about Renault?MMMMMMMM wrote: ↑09 Oct 2018, 12:21source: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13926 ... ault-slumpWhen asked if he feels Renault would have been better off taking the C-spec engine as its third powerunit with the benefit of hindsight, Sainz responded: "If it comes without reliability, no.
"The team is fully sure that with our fuel it is just not reliable enough, so I fully back the team with whatever decision they take.
"I just think we need more power, which we don't have, and we don't get it for whatever reason. If we wanted to be in Q3 in Japan we just needed more power, and Honda has showed that it is possible."
To me this is clear indication that Spec B has less power than Honda's latest evolution.
TR completely messed up the tyre strategy in Suzuka. Therefore you cannot make any good predictions about the spec 3 race pace. Wait for the next races.Andres125sx wrote: ↑10 Oct 2018, 17:34Maybe with last Honda qualy mode that´s true for saturdays, but watching STR fall from 6th and 7th to both cars out of the points on sunday.... I´d say on race trim they´re still down on power, specially after watching Renault passing STR even when Renault is the slowest Renault powered car (ironically)
Even when there´re obviously more factors, acceleration and top speed are still some important factors to evaluate a PU, don´t you think so?
Acceleration is the only important factor to evaluate a PU. Top speed isn't telling you anything (other than a datapoint to evaluate your model).Andres125sx wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 08:57Even when there´re obviously more factors, acceleration and top speed are still some important factors to evaluate a PU, don´t you think so?
Correct me if I'm wrong but a 1% deviation in drag would create a 1% deviation in power.rscsr wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 09:52Acceleration is the only important factor to evaluate a PU. Top speed isn't telling you anything (other than a datapoint to evaluate your model).
If your drag figures are only 1% false (for a guessed figure, that is different for every track, often almost every day and both cars of a team), the power you get is wrong by about 0.3% (for a given topspeed).
Or when you compare different cars to estimate the difference in engine performance your error scales linearly with the error in the drag estimation.
yeah, of course you are right.Walkman wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 13:31Correct me if I'm wrong but a 1% deviation in drag would create a 1% deviation in power.rscsr wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 09:52Acceleration is the only important factor to evaluate a PU. Top speed isn't telling you anything (other than a datapoint to evaluate your model).
If your drag figures are only 1% false (for a guessed figure, that is different for every track, often almost every day and both cars of a team), the power you get is wrong by about 0.3% (for a given topspeed).
Or when you compare different cars to estimate the difference in engine performance your error scales linearly with the error in the drag estimation.
P=.5*rho*frontalarea*Cd*Speed^3
Make that 950+ please In F1 a measly 10 hp still makes a difference, especially with the midfield so close together.MMMMMMMM wrote: ↑05 Oct 2018, 22:05They ran B spec on Fri, but are switching to spec C for Sat.
The 25x is just to give you an idea, could be 24.5 or 24.8x in reality
What I can rely on is their official site which says “more than 960 hp” right off the bat with spec A.
Let’s see, Suzuka is 71% full throttle, really looking forward to qualy.
Then there is differences with traction.. so it will be difficult to assess the difference between two different engined cars. I believe the effect of traction is a bigger performance differentiator than the power difference currently. The corner exit speed leading onto a straight tends to get half the job done of a drag race type overtake.rscsr wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 09:52Acceleration is the only important factor to evaluate a PU. Top speed isn't telling you anything (other than a datapoint to evaluate your model).Andres125sx wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 08:57Even when there´re obviously more factors, acceleration and top speed are still some important factors to evaluate a PU, don´t you think so?
If your drag figures are only 1% false (for a guessed figure, that is different for every track, often almost every day and both cars of a team), the power you get is wrong by about 0.3% (for a given topspeed).
Or when you compare different cars to estimate the difference in engine performance your error scales linearly with the error in the drag estimation.