amho wrote: โ24 Dec 2017, 22:53
If I was a f1 engine designer I wouldn't care of reliability for 4 engine per season and I would go for pure performance. In the last season we have seen that how a fast car with penalties could make its way to near poduim.
I agree with what McHonda is saying and that a pure-performance development approach is not the right way to go forward for Renault.
As has been said elsewhere already, the number of competitive cars is expected to increase with Mclaren and Renault improving. Thus a penalty will cost more, and starting from the back of the grid will be a greater disadvantage.
Also a performance oriented approach, with unreliability as a consequese, might hurt in pre-season testing if sufficient milage can't be achieved. This might not only hurt PU development, but also aero and chassis development as a result of a lack of data.
As said above, pure performance isn't helpfull if it's not sustainable for longer periods of time. Being quick over a qualifying lap isn't beneficial if the PU destroys itself and result in grid penalties. Like we saw in Mexico, if Renault can turn up the PU that they already have to a high power state, then the PU's race-performance is decent. Renault should work to ensure they can sustain a high power state, throughout all the races that the elements are required to do without incuring penalties. That's what will bring the Renault powered teams the most points on a sunday, the most pre-season and in-season development data and the least fire-fighting of unreliability issues.