Welcome to NewsOnF1 Forums where you can chat about anything Formula 1
https://www.newsonf1.net/forum/
Would have been disappointed if you didJulian Mayo wrote:I do not concur.gkaytaz wrote:Imagine by some interference of an extraordinary force (no not Bernie or the FIA) RBR winning the title
Joke aside I think they will improve quite a bit but not enough to score more than a couple of podiums at best.
DC is a consistent 8th place driver. Occasional higher place finishes perhaps. One thing he does well, I admit, is that whenever he sees an opportunity he grabs it (in terms of F1, can't vouch for his life outside the paddock). And hangs on to it.
Webber is good and faster than DC but not fast enough to get very high up.
Lower viscosity = more leaks = bigger engine fire tendencyJulian Mayo wrote:The camber set up on the RB is typical Newey.....are they the biggest intakes we have seen yet?........hmmm..........run bigger intakes........lower viscosity oil......less density against moving bits........faster compression cycle........hmmm.......but then again it took me 2 hours just to change the sump on Therapy via detachment of various steering thingys etc
I simply abbhor disappointing peoplegkaytaz wrote:Would have been disappointed if you didJulian Mayo wrote:I do not concur.gkaytaz wrote:Imagine by some interference of an extraordinary force (no not Bernie or the FIA) RBR winning the title
Joke aside I think they will improve quite a bit but not enough to score more than a couple of podiums at best.
DC is a consistent 8th place driver. Occasional higher place finishes perhaps. One thing he does well, I admit, is that whenever he sees an opportunity he grabs it (in terms of F1, can't vouch for his life outside the paddock). And hangs on to it.
Webber is good and faster than DC but not fast enough to get very high up.
lower viscosity=less pressure???gkaytaz wrote:Lower viscosity = more leaks = bigger engine fire tendencyJulian Mayo wrote:The camber set up on the RB is typical Newey.....are they the biggest intakes we have seen yet?........hmmm..........run bigger intakes........lower viscosity oil......less density against moving bits........faster compression cycle........hmmm.......but then again it took me 2 hours just to change the sump on Therapy via detachment of various steering thingys etc
Yes but they tend to leak through faulty rings and gaskets whereas their higher viscosity counterparts stay put. The heat doesn't help you know. Lowers the viscosity even further.Julian Mayo wrote:lower viscosity=less pressure???gkaytaz wrote:Lower viscosity = more leaks = bigger engine fire tendencyJulian Mayo wrote:The camber set up on the RB is typical Newey.....are they the biggest intakes we have seen yet?........hmmm..........run bigger intakes........lower viscosity oil......less density against moving bits........faster compression cycle........hmmm.......but then again it took me 2 hours just to change the sump on Therapy via detachment of various steering thingys etc
Good, so I made your day thenJulian Mayo wrote: I simply abbhor disappointing people
Or night rather Issue of optimization. Bigger intakes create more drag. Gotta know what kinda trade-off would be acceptable.Julian Mayo wrote:Of course, if the intakes are no bigger.................then I really need sleep........bugga the Spanish Dancer
Ahhh, but with the advances in small bore rings n seals,.....is Newey prepared to take the risk to enable a faster compression cycle, given that they are rev limited?? The only way I can see them getting an advantage over one another is thru combustion cycle evolution, n gear boxesgkaytaz wrote:Yes but they tend to leak through faulty rings and gaskets whereas their higher viscosity counterparts stay put. The heat doesn't help you know. Lowers the viscosity even further.Julian Mayo wrote:lower viscosity=less pressure???gkaytaz wrote:
Lower viscosity = more leaks = bigger engine fire tendency
Variable for the circuit at handgkaytaz wrote:Issue of optimization. Bigger intakes create more drag. Gotta know what kinda trade-off would be acceptable.Julian Mayo wrote:Of course, if the intakes are no bigger.................then I really need sleep........bugga the Spanish Dancer
They'll get the seamless shift from Renault. The rest depends on how big RBR wants to gambleJulian Mayo wrote:Ahhh, but with the advances in small bore rings n seals,.....is Newey prepared to take the risk to enable a faster compression cycle, given that they are rev limited?? The only way I can see them getting an advantage over one another is thru combustion cycle evolution, n gear boxesgkaytaz wrote:Yes but they tend to leak through faulty rings and gaskets whereas their higher viscosity counterparts stay put. The heat doesn't help you know. Lowers the viscosity even further.Julian Mayo wrote:
lower viscosity=less pressure???
With Newey in the picture one can never be sure what's to be called a big gamble though 
They might use slap-on pieces to create intake sizes necessary to suit changing conditions during the race.Julian Mayo wrote:Variable for the circuit at handgkaytaz wrote:Issue of optimization. Bigger intakes create more drag. Gotta know what kinda trade-off would be acceptable.Julian Mayo wrote:Of course, if the intakes are no bigger.................then I really need sleep........bugga the Spanish Dancer
They'll get the seamless shift from Renault. The rest depends on how big RBR wants to gamblegkaytaz wrote:Julian Mayo wrote:Ahhh, but with the advances in small bore rings n seals,.....is Newey prepared to take the risk to enable a faster compression cycle, given that they are rev limited?? The only way I can see them getting an advantage over one another is thru combustion cycle evolution, n gear boxesgkaytaz wrote:
Yes but they tend to leak through faulty rings and gaskets whereas their higher viscosity counterparts stay put. The heat doesn't help you know. Lowers the viscosity even further.
With Newey in the picture one can never be sure what's to be called a big gamble though [/quote