F1technical.net

Ground Effect wrote: ↑

28 Aug 2018, 18:22

Renault Spec C worth 0.3secs around Monza, with right fuel etc etc. Which probably means it won't be worth 0.3secs with Red Bull. No offence, of this was Mercedes, Ferrari and even Honda, I'd believe. But with Renault, you never know
....

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/upgr ... 83/?nrt=54

Mea culpa, can't find the source anymore.

But in short it's the reason why Abiteboul carefully communicates: "Depending on the fuel used" instead of "With BP Fuel....".

Because it's the other way around. The Exxon Fuel seems to be more tailored to the Spec C resulting in a projected/communicated gain of 0,3s in Qualifying and 0,1s during race.

The BP Fuel seems to be tailored towards the Spec B. They haven't got an optimized fuel blend for the spec C yet, thus also diminishing the potential gain.
RBR would gain more using the spec C then Renault/McLaren would.

Beside that Renault/McLaren want consistency in scoring points in the midfield and cannot afford to loose points.
RBR can take the risk if the engine components can at least can survive 2 races. They want to win GP's. Even if the penalty is changing engines every other race.

Edit: source AMuS

Mclaren won't fit it if it needs as much repackaging as they infered, because there's no point spending money redeveloping that area of the car this year for them.

The only reason RBR is going to test the new spec, is to measure it against the Honda stuff they'll be getting next year.

And if it fails miserably, they hope Ricci will possibly think that Renault is a mistake, or whatever they're plan is

PhillipM wrote: ↑

29 Aug 2018, 14:37

Mclaren won't fit it if it needs as much repackaging as they infered, because there's no point spending money redeveloping that area of the car this year for them.

I thought the only new piece that required refitting was the MGU-K not the ICE. RBR is running the new ICE but with the older MGU-K so I don't think there was nay redesign needed to fit it.

The Renault statement from a few days ago said the Spec 3 unit required some repackaging work.

edit: And Horner said the same thing:

"There's a significant amount of cost that's gone into integrating the engine into the car, cooling etc, so if there is any performance, which it looks like there is with our fuel partner, we're happy to take that risk"

And Mcl:
"McLaren has no plans to use the spec C because significant changes would be required to install it in the chassis."

hm...Spec C‘s presumable 0.3s advantage over Spec B is in reality 0.1s slower?

lio007 wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 19:53

hm...Spec C‘s presumable 0.3s advantage over Spec B is in reality 0.1s slower?

How do you come to this conclusion after a rainy fp1 and a racesim fp2 ?

Some people really astonish me by their lack of common sense.

Walkman wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 20:47

lio007 wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 19:53

hm...Spec C‘s presumable 0.3s advantage over Spec B is in reality 0.1s slower?

How do you come to this conclusion after a rainy fp1 and a racesim fp2 ?

Some people really astonish me by their lack of common sense.

I doubt spec C with old MGUK is .3s...

Zynerji wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:09

Walkman wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 20:47

lio007 wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 19:53

hm...Spec C‘s presumable 0.3s advantage over Spec B is in reality 0.1s slower?

How do you come to this conclusion after a rainy fp1 and a racesim fp2 ?

Some people really astonish me by their lack of common sense.

I doubt spec C with old MGUK is .3s...

How can the new MGUK bring any significant performance aside from reliability? Isn't the output capped?

Benii6 wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:29

Zynerji wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:09

Walkman wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 20:47

How do you come to this conclusion after a rainy fp1 and a racesim fp2 ?

Some people really astonish me by their lack of common sense.

I doubt spec C with old MGUK is .3s...

How can the new MGUK bring any significant performance aside from reliability? Isn't the output capped?

It is. And RB doesn't gain anything from the weight gain since they aren't overweight and would have to put ballast that is at the same height as the K.

Walkman wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 20:47

lio007 wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 19:53

hm...Spec C‘s presumable 0.3s advantage over Spec B is in reality 0.1s slower?

How do you come to this conclusion after a rainy fp1 and a racesim fp2 ?

Some people really astonish me by their lack of common sense.

Ok, I've made my "conclusion", if you want to call it so, on the qualy sims in FP2.
Yes, maybe it's to early to draw some conclusions, but based on the times both drivers have achieved, I can't see an improvement worth mentioning (right now).

Walkman wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:34

Benii6 wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:29

Zynerji wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:09

I doubt spec C with old MGUK is .3s...

How can the new MGUK bring any significant performance aside from reliability? Isn't the output capped?

It is. And RB doesn't gain anything from the weight gain since they aren't overweight and would have to put ballast that is at the same height as the K.

Renault said that the update brings .3 in quali and .1 in race pace. Considering this and the fact that it only works with RB's fuel supplier, suggests its combustion related. Is it oil burning?
Renault is on the low end of oil consumption compered to Ferrari/Mercedes plus RB has been pushing for a quali mode. It also explains the reliability concern.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... un-zeiten/

Obviously Max get's the Spec-C as well tomorrow. RB's engineers calculated an improvement of .15 to .2 seconds.

So my previous assumption, that the Spec-C is not an improvement, was wrong.

Benii6 wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:58

Walkman wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:34

Benii6 wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:29

How can the new MGUK bring any significant performance aside from reliability? Isn't the output capped?

It is. And RB doesn't gain anything from the weight gain since they aren't overweight and would have to put ballast that is at the same height as the K.

Renault said that the update brings .3 in quali and .1 in race pace. Considering this and the fact that it only works with RB's fuel supplier, suggests its combustion related. Is it oil burning?
Renault is on the low end of oil consumption compered to Ferrari/Mercedes plus RB has been pushing for a quali mode. It also explains the reliability concern.

Renault never went the oil burning road. They were too late to the game and decided to focus their attention on other lagging areas. They just probably improved the lean burn/increased the turbo pressure so the reliability is compromised.

Benii6 wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:29

Zynerji wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 21:09

Walkman wrote: ↑

31 Aug 2018, 20:47

How do you come to this conclusion after a rainy fp1 and a racesim fp2 ?

Some people really astonish me by their lack of common sense.

I doubt spec C with old MGUK is .3s...

How can the new MGUK bring any significant performance aside from reliability? Isn't the output capped?

Efficiency maybe? I mean, the teams have been improving it since 2014... You wouldnt need to upgrade it ever if it was reliable enough and had max output...