Mercedes engine ... still the best ?
#1
Posted 30 July 2012 - 05:58
Ps: what if they actually developed their engine and Mercedes stood still.. you think FIA can check 100% all the engines ??
Advertisement
#2
Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:03
#3
Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:46
#4
Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:48
Especially after some minor tuning...Renault is the best engine. Might be down 5-8 hp on the Merc but it's much easier to package, has a wider torque band, and has better fuel economy.
#5
Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:50
Edited by ViMaMo, 30 July 2012 - 07:18.
#6
Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:01
#7
Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:20
#8
Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:34
And Renault engineers seem to be more.. creative. Hot blowing, half-working spots, so on. Never knows what tweak they will find tomorrow.
Edited by sofarapartguy, 30 July 2012 - 07:36.
#9
Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:56
I don't think that anyone here has a clue ...
Apart from that, the answer might be different from circuit to circuit.
I miss options like "I don't know", "I can't decide", "Maybe about equal".
#10
Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:55
#11
Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:10
20HP sounds more likely than 8/9 to be honest, I don't believe engines run so close together even with this (stupid) freeze in place.Who was the commentator on Star Sports yesterday? He was still quoting 20 bhp deficit to Merc. 785 bhp for merc.
It's not as clear-cut as 20BHP difference means 0.x seconds because different manufacturers are making the engines. If your engine consumes less petrol, you have to carry around less fuel. If it has a more lineair power output or a greater power band, the handling of the car is affected as well. So a direct comparison between a Merc and a Renault f.e. is virtually impossible. But if one slightly degraded Merc engine were put up against a new one and has 20BHP difference (in the same chassis) with most of the factors the same, it would be around seven tenths I guess?What would a 20 bhp disadvantage mean lap time-wise?
My logic might be flawed though, I was thinking: KERS brings about 80HP for 6.5 seconds, about 0.4 seconds gain per lap. 20HP for 85 seconds (rough estimation of time spent on an average lap) with 60% max throttle = 0.7s?
#12
Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:15
#13
Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:39
#14
Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:49
This says it all. This actually is the reason why F1 is pretty much dead to me. The only thing that keeps me going is the presence of Schumacher, for good old times sake.Renault were allowed to constantly upgrade their engine. They may have been down on horsepower but that's not the only worthy statistic for an engine, they were up on many other factors. All the complaining by Horner. Same with Ferrari but to a lesser extent. F1 desperately needs the new engines, too bad we have another year of these. It's not really fair to freeze engines, then allow some teams to upgrade and then overtake others. The whole thing was horribly managed.
But ontopic: they pulled the plug out of it with that freeze thing, it's just so unnatural to stop developments. If they had upped the need for reliability even more or cut the rev limiter (that really is a stupid thing, you shouldn't be able to hit a limiter early while being on a straight, it's always a compromise), it would have been credible but this really cost F1 its true face.
#15
Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:21
Two or three tenths, and up to half a second on power hungry circuits. The Renault was certainly down a good 20 HP or maybe more when you take into account the whole drivetrain in 2009 when there was some acoustic analysis made public. The difficulty now is that all teams are doing what Mercedes were doing which was improving the power output of their engines on the quiet within homologation.What would a 20 bhp disadvantage mean lap time-wise?
If you asked any team on the quiet what engine they would pick if they had a choice it would be the Mercedes.
#16
Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:22
That doesn't matter. If you have a more powerful engine then you simply turn it down to consume less fuel and use the power when you need it, either in qualifying or at times in the race when you want to try and maintain track position, for example.It's not as clear-cut as 20BHP difference means 0.x seconds because different manufacturers are making the engines. If your engine consumes less petrol, you have to carry around less fuel.
If you give any team the choice they will choose to have the power.
#17
Posted 30 July 2012 - 15:49
Edited by Mc_Silver, 30 July 2012 - 15:53.
#18
Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:09
However thus put Mercedes at a disadvantage because there are other engine parameters that are important but Mercedes have not been allowed to gain equality in this area with Renault/RBR.
BHP - I think the differences are neglible
Size - Renault better - more compact
Cooling - Renault better - you can see with naked eye it needs less cooling and tighter packaging.
Fuel Efficiency - Renault better - it was inherently a more frugal engine to begin with - they can start lighter.
#19
Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:17
The Renault uses less fuel, which mean sless weight throughout the race, is more compact which allows better aero packaging, and can also be run at a higher temperature which allows less cooling, which reduces drag and allows better packaging.
The Mercedes may have 10-15 extra horses (if that) but thats just at the top end.
Under the refueling rules a slight advantage was locked in for Mercedes and Ferrari, but under the no refuelling rule an advantage is locked in for Renault.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:25
Since 2010, the Renault as a package has been better - due to having to lug all your race fuel around with you.
The Renault uses less fuel, which mean sless weight throughout the race, is more compact which allows better aero packaging, and can also be run at a higher temperature which allows less cooling, which reduces drag and allows better packaging.
The Mercedes may have 10-15 extra horses (if that) but thats just at the top end.
Under the refueling rules a slight advantage was locked in for Mercedes and Ferrari, but under the no refuelling rule an advantage is locked in for Renault.
Yeah and if I was Mercedes or had a Mercedes engine - I would lobby the FIA to request parity in say fuel consumption. Mercedes should ask FIA to ask Renault/RBR to submit how many litres of fuel they have been using in a race, and if its less than Mercedes thus affecting lap time then theres a case to equalise performance.
Horner played the BHP defeceit with political perfection.
#21
Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:34
#22
Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:35
#23
Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:35
Yeah and if I was Mercedes or had a Mercedes engine - I would lobby the FIA to request parity in say fuel consumption. Mercedes should ask FIA to ask Renault/RBR to submit how many litres of fuel they have been using in a race, and if its less than Mercedes thus affecting lap time then theres a case to equalise performance.
Horner played the BHP defeceit with political perfection.
This
#24
Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:56
#25
Posted 30 July 2012 - 23:07
The Renault was definitely down 15-20 hp before 2010 but all the whining by Horner got the FIA to allow them to catch up.
Renaultsport F1 Director Jean-Francois Caubet said at the beginning of this season, that the difference to the Mercedes engine is around 15 hp. And this guy should know.
Plus, the Mercedes KERS with 60kw is more powerful than Renaults with 40kw.
#26
Posted 31 July 2012 - 00:43
I also think we can all agree that Cosworth have the weakest package.
#27
Posted 31 July 2012 - 00:48
I see a lot of talk about Renault and Mercedes yet so little talk about Ferrari. Exactly how good are Ferrari's engines when compared to Renault or Mercedes engines?
I also think we can all agree that Cosworth have the weakest package.
The Ferrari engine is decent in a straightline - almost up there with the Mercedes but is the same as the Merc in driveability. Has the best fuel economy of them all it seems. The drivers with Ferrari engines are never being told to save fuel as far as I'm aware.
#28
Posted 31 July 2012 - 02:44
#29
Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:56
Need to go for say.............Cosworth.
(Couldn't be worse surely).
#30
Posted 31 July 2012 - 06:18
Plus, the Mercedes KERS with 60kw is more powerful than Renaults with 40kw.
It was bugging me when Ted Kravitz said that this weekend, he just misinterpeted a radio message when Kimi was advised to use partial KERS capacity at a point of the race - I'm pretty sure it was only the Red Bull that chose to have the smaller battery capacity for their in-house unit, which Caterham also now use (and that was their 2011 spec, I don't know if that still applies in 2012) - the Renault/LRGP/Lotus F1 is the full 60kw.
#31
Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:00
I think the Renault, through the wrong means, is the class of the field now.
#32
Posted 31 July 2012 - 15:04
Yes I know Red Bull won at Spa last year but that was a blatant Cheat with their camber settings!
#33
Posted 31 July 2012 - 16:06
It was bugging me when Ted Kravitz said that this weekend, he just misinterpeted a radio message when Kimi was advised to use partial KERS capacity at a point of the race - I'm pretty sure it was only the Red Bull that chose to have the smaller battery capacity for their in-house unit, which Caterham also now use (and that was their 2011 spec, I don't know if that still applies in 2012) - the Renault/LRGP/Lotus F1 is the full 60kw.
That annoyed me too! The message was turn it down to 40 and we'll turn it back up later! I thought I was the only one had heard it that way.