According to Dietrich Mateschitz.

With Renault being allowed to equalise their power to their competitors could they have fallen behind again with Mercedes power cars pretty much dominating F1 from their main partners McLaren, prodigy Brawn and bargain basement Force India.

Is this all a coincidence or are Mercedes up to something underhanded?

I have wondered myself how good Merc engine is doing this year compared to others.They seem to be in different league.

Already mentioned in the Red Bull 2009 thread?

The engine equalization is not perfect, there are still some differences in power delivery characteristics and reliability. I suppose the next step for F1 is to have a single supplier of a spec engine.

Cue Max's entrance Stage Left........

Well when F1 is at a track that's 90% power 10% aero efficiency, and 6 of the top 7(!) cars are Mercedes power, then you know that engine is dominant. I certainly blame the renault engines for their inability to pick up serious points these last two rounds. We know the aero on the car is very good, just seems like the Renault engines are rubbish

you talking about monza 2009?

The problem with F1 right now is that there are only 2 good engines available in F1, the Ferrari and the Mercedes.

The Renault is not in that league and Monza demonstrated that Toyota is down on power and BMW won't be available next year.

And I'm really not convinced by Cosworths claims that their engine is going to be 100% competitive either, after several years out (unless the FIA have slipped them a copy of the Merc engine design).

Rinehart...perhaps 2010 will be less of a disastor for Renault engines, as they seem to be less thirsty (refuel ban)

Ferrari engine is not so good. STR's were nowhere. Fuel thirsty as well.

http://fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/f1_media/...race_speeds.pdf yeah Renault engines had such a low top speed

Both the engine and ECU software are checked by the FIA. All the teams are now using, the same, V66 software, with the exception of Renault who are using V65.

can you provide us a changelog Andy (v65 to v66)

The Ferrari engine is one of the least fuel efficient in F1 at the moment.

I've heared that Mercedes leave the F1 engines outside in the rain and pie over them ... :yawn:

Clear sign that RBR will have a Merc engine next year.

MaxFan1: if other teams approve on Merc supplying one more team

Once they've cleared the two hurdles that stand in the way: McLaren and the FIA.

What does Mclaren got to do with anything? Do they own a part of merc and can decide what their race department does?

All the engines used in F1 produce the same amount of BHP, typically within 5% of each other.

The difference is in the power band or torque band of the differing units. The engine with a flatter torque range will be far easier to drive than a 'peaky' engine, therefor, allowing smoother, and quicker, power delivery for exiting turns.

Clauses in their contract mean they get a say on who Mercedes-Benz supply engines to.

@dank: i didnt know that, can you plz give me a source for more info

way to burn your bridges Mateschitz...

Obviously McLaren does have a say/option/contract as the 'works' team which gives them some chips at the table. McLaren-Merc are a partnership, ofcourse that will be considered.

Frankly, I suspect McLaren would be fine with the rest of the grid using Merc engines, knowing theirs were the the best...!

No source, just common knowledge really.

This engine freeze is ridiculous. The Merc engine is better than all of its rivals and as long as the freeze continues, it will stay that way. Soon enough we are going to have Formula Mercedes with the number of teams running Merc engines. They need to unfreeze the engines and let the others catch up.

Well, not the same then. 5% is huge! 40hp. That the benefit of Kers for the WHOLE lap as the difference between the best and worst engine.

After Monza, I don't think there can be any doubt that the Toyota engine is not in the same league as the Merc.

A strange world isn't it. Renault, Toyota and Honda did not develop their engines to produce more power after they were homologated. Ferrari and Mercedes did. Then Honda pulled out, and Renault were allowed to upgrade their engine, for this year.

Yet Renault, who obeyed the non development homologation principle, likely used a crash to increase the chance of a win at Singapore, which actually maxed out into an actual win. But now they are in desperate trouble for what their team likely did. And RBR are blaming the Renault engines for being inferior. Yet both issues have been in obvious competitive advantage been caused by two other teams - Ferrari and Mercedes - stepping around the well known and established principles of homologation, and racing with much improved, much further developed engines. The proof of course was when STR received from Ferrari an upgraded engine (despite being homologated) that provided a huge leapfrog in performance to STR. From being an inferior car to the identically chassied RBR, STR became the far superior car. All due to the engine "upgrade", something that was supposed to be prevented when homologation was introduced.

F1 really is starting to smell IMO. And those Force India cars have tonnes of McLaren technology in them. But it seems all to be legal, despite a McLaren expert being at the team. And those MB engines are pushing the RBRs back into the field, achieving Mercedes engine benefits for Brawn in particular. A team that Mercedes are about to invest in.

One must wonder what Renault think. A couple of years ago, they were winning everything. Then the FIA got rid of Michelin, and then the homologation rulesT were stepped around by those two #1 teams, McLaren and Ferrari. Who suddenly had become friends again.

The mind boggles at times.

They would as long as their car is the best and they win. If they start being beaten by 3 or 4 teams with better car but same engine they won't be so happy !

Which begs a question, would Mercedes have been as interested in the Brawn team if it were using another engine rather than a MHP one?

never heard this about the current merc engines but it was said that that's how BMW managed to 'weather' their old 1500cc turbo blocks (i stand to be corrected but the durability of the blocks was better when they'd been 'aged', so they were said to be left out and peed on, although it may just be an urban myth)

As I recall that seem to be the thought stated by some when the Mercs replaced the Honda at Brawn. It was not so much the power, but the "driveabilty".

In which case, I wonder about the so-called standard ECU and its related development as somehow insuring this superior driveability over the others, since torque curves and other such matters are governed by the ECU programs interacting with the engine.


(and if ferrari engines were so much better than Renault, than why use Renault for what appears to be the "a-team", and why were they not be begging for ferrari engines for the A-team???????)

That never crossed my mind but it is a very interesting idea.

There is noting wrong with the SECU.

I have no knowledge of the SECU, but, do you know if they (the teams) can program it with regards to ignition timing over a variety of revs for any particular engine?

it could be that they are running less wing than others

Horner said during FP3 on RTL IIRC that they ran very, very little rear wing.
Vettel was all over the place during the race, the rear constantly breaking out.

It could also mean that, due to the high speed nature of Monza, they were using a higher gear ratio, which would go someway in explaining why it seemed that Vettel was having under steer problems.

Any modifications to the engines by Ferrari and Mecedes are cleary within the regulations, as they have passed scrutineering many dozens of times. It's not really the fault of the big guys if they've improved within the limitations they are alowed to more than the smaller teams, it's no different to say Mclaren having developed a superior KERS unit. Lets not forget that Renault were alowed an update to update their engine once already, if they're not using the same loopholes/grey areas as the rest that's really their problem and their problem alone.

Aparently Alonso (also Renault powered car) did not have that all-over-the-place problem.

Apparently he had KERS and was still some 5 km/h slower in the Topspeed rankings.
Now, wouldn't that indicate slightly more rear wing?

Don't know, just asking ...

KERS has influence on top speed as well?

Funnily enough I've heard that myth before, someone once swore blind that was the reason why the company I worked for at the time left castings out in the rain. I didn't have the heart to tell him I had designed them and no such thought had ever crossed my mind! They were actually left out in all weathers as there was no space or reason to store them undercover!

Rain isn't going to change the structural properties of metal, it just helps them corrode a little faster.

There may be some aspect of relaxation and dissipation of internal stresses left from manufacture as they go through gentle heating and cooling cycles but I'm not convinced, and the reality is F1 teams can easily afford faster and more effective heat treatment to achieve better and controlled results anyway.

No the extra 80 hp it gives does

No, KERS will only enable a car to reach its top speed quicker.

@ForeverF1: was my understandin as well

Good post. Remember the advantage Renault gained from Michelin was no more unethical than the engine evos etc. What goes around comes around!

Not a myth at all, been well known practice for a long time but strictly for cast iron of which the BMW Turbo's were.

There is also the consideration, that due to the extra 80 HP, they could theoretically use a higher gear ratio and hence attain a higher speed.