Originally posted by Melbourne Park
What garbage. The pity is, you don't even recognize the poor service that Red Bull got from Ferrari with their engines cooling issues. Incidentally, Newey is more than competent on aerodynamics. And so is his staff. The Renault case is a simple example that a team quite willing to spend lots on an engine, was happy to buy the Renault unit. That's testimony to the equality of engines now. They went to the huge trouble of progamming another ECU, when all they had to do was put in an engine they were intimate with. They chose not to.
It's also evidenced about what the teams say about engines - that they are all pretty much the same now. You should read what Mauro Forghieri says about current F1 engines, how totally boring the whole engine thing now is, I presume you've heard of him. If what you say is correct, the Toro Rosso should have been dominant over the RBR3 on low aero tracks. It wasn't.
The facts are that if teams don't do everything available on their engines, they'll go slower. But if they do do everything available, it will not make them much faster than a team that does say 95% of the available work. With the current engine rules, the expenditure / benefit curve peaks quite early and becomes almost flat. Ferrari can afford to do 99%, and not restrict resources from other more productive areas of car improvement. And you can bet that with the top 6 teams, their engine performances will be very similar. But that the ability for the drive wheels to deliver that power will vary much much much more between the teams than will engine performance. And they way to fix those problems is with aero and mechanical development.
I think you have missed the point yet again Melbourne Park, no one was debating the level of service Ferrari gave Red Bull, but rather as you confirmed it was the cooling requirements of the Ferrari unit which was not given to Red Bull by Ferrari in comparison to Renault who may have offered more assistance here. But again if all the engines are the same (as you believe), then so must be their cooling requirements. I think you are not giving Newey enough credit to suggest he needed more help from a rival team regarding the aero of his own design then what Ferrari was giving him.
My point is simply that Newey being an aerodynamicist saw the advantage in the Renault unit over and above the Ferrari one, that can't be debated, i was not commenting on Newey's competences but rather that as an aerodynamicist, if all the engines were the same why the big drama from Newey to adopt the Renault unit? This cannot be based on service alone but rather the aero limitations due to the Ferrari engines cooling requirements. This was the key comment from Newey and if you look at the current Ferrari design compared to the Renault, which team has greater levels of cooling apendiges on their body work??? The answer is for all to see.
As for your ECU comment...you will find that Ferrari and Renault used the same system, so not a big work load here to change the engines over, certainly not a "huge trouble" as you suggested.
As for your comments regarding Mauro Forghieri, yes he is well known, he is commenting on the many FIA restrictions which have shifted focus away from engines to aero, and yes the engines are very similar to each other which is a product of the FIA rules, but by no means are they identical, if they were and there was no room for development he would be out of the job.
Here is an extract from an interview with Newey regarding the engines of 2007, not 2008.
Q: Given that the engine regulations are much more restrictive now than then, how much value does that extra data add?
AN: Engine development in the hardware sense is obviously restricted with the frozen regulations, but there’s still an awful lot in the way the engine is operated that is crucially important, and that’s where I think our relationship with Renault will pay dividends.
That's straight from the horses mouth regarding engine development potential. The interview also goes on with Newey siting the number of differences between the units, most notably in the cooling requirements.
As for your point on Torro Rosso and Red Bull; Torro Rosso is the sister team of Red Bull, i would have assumed you knew that, in which case you would also know that Torro Rosso was a number of evolutions of car development behind Red Bull as Red Bull supply them with the entire car, from chassis to aero. But the one aspect of the car which is different is the engine. In actual fact the Torro Rosso car is a year old Red Bull for the most part with a number of refinements; regardless its aero effciency is somewhat behind the Red Bull.
So to prove a point lets look at the top speed trap times on a power circuit or low aero circuit as you suggested...Monza. Vettel was consistently 3 kph faster at every intermediate then the next best Red Bull car (Webber). Now this does not tell the full story obviously but it is indicative that for a car effectively carrying an older version of Red Bulls own aero, that even given the loss in aero efficiency to the Red Bull they had faster speed trap results. The engine difference may, just may have played a part in this dont you think?
So although the Torro Rosso was not as good overall compared to the Red Bull, in the area where engine performance can be seen the most and between two manufacturers who develop their engines to their fullest capacity, at a low aero track the Torro Rosso was faster in the straight line... Blows your theory out of the water. Especially once you consider that Red Bull was using up to date Renault spec engines, whereas the Torro Rosso outfit were contractually receiving a prior evolution of the Ferrari engine, and yet still faster on the low aero circuit...hmmmm
Let's gain some clarification here, no one is saying that engine performance is the only measure of performance, my comments were in response to yours, in that and i quote..."engines are not an issue now."
My point was simply they are more an issue in 2008 then in 2007 and that their importance in the entire package should not be discounted due to the significant knock on effects they create both for aero efficiency, tyre wear and of course the combination of this is overall car speed. If it were no longer an issue as you stated, then the top manufacturers, Ferrari, McLaren, BMW, Renault, Toyota, etc would re allocate all their spending from engines to either aero or mechanical R&D...funnily enough, they don't so therefore they are an issue unless all these teams just like to spend money for no reward...before you start, leave Toyota alone because they were nice enough to setup the retirement funds of Mike Gascoyne and Ralfy Boy.
![:lol:](https://forums.autosport.com/public/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)
If you don't agree with the above which was the core aspect of my response before you decided to take it somewhat off course (for obvious reasons) then state your reasoning. But i take it from your earlier response that you do agree.
As you stated "The facts are that if teams don't do everything available on their engines, they'll go slower. But if they do do everything available, it will not make them much faster than a team that does say 95% of the available work."
This is very true, an increase in engine performance will not make a team much faster, but i think we can all agree it will make then faster. The most important point to consider is that TC masked a lot of the power delivery problems with many units, now however with TC gone engine power delivery is even more important, hence you will expect to see more expenditure on engines in 2007 winter testing and throughout 2008 then you did during the TC era as the expenditure pay back is far greater then before.
I don't think this can be debated. If you try to debate it then that would be as you say, total 'garbage'.