Jump to content


Photo

Mercedes engine ... still the best ?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

Poll: Mercedes engine ... still the best ? (104 member(s) have cast votes)

Is Mercedes the best engine in F1

  1. Yes (33 votes [30.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.00%

  2. No.. Renault caught up and overtook Mercedes (58 votes [52.73%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.73%

  3. Mercedes ? Renault ?? lol.. the best F1 engine is Ferrari !! (19 votes [17.27%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.27%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 pit5bul

pit5bul
  • Member

  • 650 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 30 July 2012 - 05:58

I know engine development freeze is in place but... seeing how good teams like Lotus , RedBull and Williams are going... compared with Mercedes , McLaren and Force India.. i got a feeling that Mercedes isn't the best engine in F1 anymore... McLaren try to save fuel every race ( i believe Renault is more economic ) compared to RB or Lotus who can push all day long..

Ps: what if they actually developed their engine and Mercedes stood still.. you think FIA can check 100% all the engines ??

Advertisement

#2 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:03

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.

#3 Starish

Starish
  • Member

  • 986 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:46

The Mercedes and Ferrari powertrains seem to have a reliability edge over the renault powertrain this season and even in 2010 and this all adds up.

#4 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:48

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.

Especially after some minor tuning... :D

#5 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,026 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:50

Who was the commentator on Star Sports yesterday? He was still quoting 20 bhp deficit to Merc. 785 bhp for merc.

Edited by ViMaMo, 30 July 2012 - 07:18.


#6 dizlexik

dizlexik
  • Member

  • 33 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:01

I think the engine are the same as in 2008/9 when Renault was allowed to catch up. The difference is that teams now want engine not only to power the car, but to save more fuel, blow diffuser, do some kind of traction control etc and Renault engine is good at it.

#7 Hyatt

Hyatt
  • Member

  • 1,106 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:20

I don't think that anyone here has a clue ...

#8 sofarapartguy

sofarapartguy
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:34

It's known that Renault engine is more responsive and smooth at low RPM, so the cars have much better traction out of the slow corners. Today it is a huge advantage.

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 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,373 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:56

I don't think that anyone here has a clue ...

:up:

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 Lennat

Lennat
  • Member

  • 484 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:55

What would a 20 bhp disadvantage mean lap time-wise?

#11 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,373 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:10

Who was the commentator on Star Sports yesterday? He was still quoting 20 bhp deficit to Merc. 785 bhp for merc.

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.

What would a 20 bhp disadvantage mean lap time-wise?

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?

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 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:15

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.

#13 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:39

Mercedes engine is the best but for the Pirelli's they have too much raw power. Maybe Merc should change to other engines ;-)

#14 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,373 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:49

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.

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.

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 cilurnum

cilurnum
  • Member

  • 1,686 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:21

What would a 20 bhp disadvantage mean lap time-wise?

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.

If you asked any team on the quiet what engine they would pick if they had a choice it would be the Mercedes.

#16 cilurnum

cilurnum
  • Member

  • 1,686 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 30 July 2012 - 12:22

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.

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.

If you give any team the choice they will choose to have the power.

#17 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,149 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 30 July 2012 - 15:49

I think Renault definitely passed mercedes. Renault engines are much more fuel-efficient, have better drivability, allows compact packaging and great torque parameters which aids traction out of slow corners. It seems like they are also good in horsepower as well. We can see that from lotus cars' good top speed

Edited by Mc_Silver, 30 July 2012 - 15:53.


#18 ZooL

ZooL
  • Member

  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:09

Renault engine now definately better than Mercedes. It is the FIA fault though. They only looked at 1 parameter of engine performance and that was BHP, RBR kept moaning and Renault were allowed to equalise their BHP.

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 onewingedangel

onewingedangel
  • Member

  • 908 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:17

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.

Advertisement

#20 ZooL

ZooL
  • Member

  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: June 08

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 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:34

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.

#22 Dalin80

Dalin80
  • Member

  • 322 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:35

I think starting the race with a fair bit less fuel is far more of a advantage then a small amount of top end power.

#23 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,149 posts
  • Joined: May 09

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 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,723 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 30 July 2012 - 18:56

yeah, id say the renault is probably the best now, 3 teams are competative with it, and caterham are best of the new teams and have a renault engine, heck didnt they pay cosworth not to use there engine?


#25 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 629 posts
  • Joined: February 09

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 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 31 July 2012 - 00:43

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.

#27 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

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 Tardis40

Tardis40
  • Member

  • 733 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 31 July 2012 - 02:44

They don't seem to have the edge that they used to have.

#29 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:56

Not in the Merc chassis it isn't.
Need to go for say.............Cosworth.
(Couldn't be worse surely).

#30 onewingedangel

onewingedangel
  • Member

  • 908 posts
  • Joined: January 11

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 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 31 July 2012 - 08:00

The thing is when the engine freeze came into play all engines had their own pros and cons. Renault had good fuel efficiency, good packing and traction, but a lit less max power. Now they have been allowed to catch up on the power front, but merc and ferrari haven't been allowed to catch up on packaging or fuel economy, or improving traction.

I think the Renault, through the wrong means, is the class of the field now.

#32 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 1,657 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 31 July 2012 - 15:04

There's probably no more than 10 - 12bhp maximum output between all the engines on the grid including the Cossie. That would equate to a 3/10s advantage over a lap. However when you consider that the Renault can start the race with 10 - 15 less kilos of fuel that advantage is negated. The Renault has advantages in terms of packaging and driveability. On a power circuit like Spa and Monza I expect the Merc to win hands down.
Yes I know Red Bull won at Spa last year but that was a blatant Cheat with their camber settings!

#33 RockyRaccoon68

RockyRaccoon68
  • Member

  • 1,431 posts
  • Joined: June 10

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.