49 replies to this topic

[carlb5253]

I keep seeing all talk of the Merc PU is better than the Reanult and Ferrari and that the W05's advantage is purely PU related.

But we have other Merc powered cars fighting with the Torro Rosso's Ferrari's and RB's.

I see no advantage anywhere.

Can anybody provide 100% proof from a credible source?

We have all heard the hear say. Renault running 60% blah blah. Who knows what Merc are running at?

The fact is nobody does.

[Zava]

in the WDC top10, there are 7 mercedes engined drivers, 2 ferrari, and one renault.

in the WCC top5, there are 4 mercedes engined teams, and one ferrari.

 

in the first race, there were 6 mercedes engined drivers in the top10 (oher 2 retired from a very probable top10 finish, although pushing out another merc engined driver), 2 ferrari, and 2 renault.

in the second race, there were 7 mercedes engined drivers in the top10, 1 ferrari, and 2 renault.

 

in the case of the ferrari points scoring positions, it was always only the works team, in the case of the renault points scoring positions, it was the works team and their sister team.

 

 

 

and you still question that the mercedes engines are the best?

[carlb5253]

Maybe they are the best. But I don't buy they are SO much better. If you look at the order the teams finished in Malaysia it is roughly the same pecking order as last year with equal PU's. And last year was Aero. But this years it's all PU based.

[Clatter]

in the WDC top10, there are 7 mercedes engined drivers, 2 ferrari, and one renault.

in the WCC top5, there are 4 mercedes engined teams, and one ferrari.

 

in the first race, there were 6 mercedes engined drivers in the top10 (oher 2 retired from a very probable top10 finish, although pushing out another merc engined driver), 2 ferrari, and 2 renault.

in the second race, there were 7 mercedes engined drivers in the top10, 1 ferrari, and 2 renault.

 

in the case of the ferrari points scoring positions, it was always only the works team, in the case of the renault points scoring positions, it was the works team and their sister team.

 

 

 

and you still question that the mercedes engines are the best?

It could be that the Merc teams have simply done a better on the design stakes.

 

Over the years teams running near the back of the grid have used the engine that was a championship winning engine and it hasn't propelled them to the front. 

[hodgy21]

It would be nice to know some actual power figures for these engines, because saying you are running at 60% means nothing if you don't know what it's running at 60% of. People were saying the Mercedes PU was at 900hp, which I think was proved false just by a simple calculation. I believe there could be a lot of misdirection going on from all of the engine manufacturers.

[Zoetrope]

Mercedes, McLaren, Ferrari and Red Bull being top teams is nothing extraordinary. Mercedes shown already last year they can win on merit and also Ferrari had a slower start to the season before, for instance 2012.

Williams and Force India made a huge leap in performance.
Torro Rosso made a small step forward.
Lotus and Sauber made a step backwards.

Caterham are looking slightly better than Marussia.

So in my opinon, the only teams that make it feel like Mercedes engines are better are Williams and Force India. But it might be very well due to just having a good car. The reliability of Renault isn't that bad either. Lewis and Perez had their share of issues with Mercedes engines too. Lotus are total mess with so I would discount their problems.

[Markn93]

I think the proof is Lewis saying their GPS says RB are as fast in the corners and that therefore the time they are making up is in the straights, the odd thing though is why RB are struggling top speed-wise whereas TR are showing how good the Renault unit really is. So perhaps it's partly down to RB's gear ratios/setup choices, and certainly the RB was strong off the line, more so than the Ferrari of Alonso although Rosberg was clearly better in the second phase. This inclines me to think perhaps the Merc's ERS is better.  

[scheivlak]

Based on speed trap data one might guess that Mercedes have more power, but not that much. You'll often see that eight of the top 10 are Merc powered with the Toro Rossos -who often have a more low downforce setup- somewhere in the mix.

[JeePee]

Alonso was side by side with Hulkenberg for the entire start/finish straight at one point of the race. Alonso had his DRS wide open and Hulk closed, but the Ferrari wasn't even faster.

 

Edited by JeePee, 31 March 2014 - 10:02.

[Clatter]

Alonso was side by side with Hulkenberg for the entire start/finish straight at one point of the race. Alonso had his DRS wide open and Hulk closed, but the Ferrari wasn't even faster.

 

Means nothing unless you know the downforce levels, gearing etc. And it's quite possible that Hulk had saved his batteries for a big push to protect his lead and Alonso had already used his to catch up. There are a lot of factors at play and you simply cannot do a straight side by side comparison and come up with valid data without knowing what those factors are.

[Cesc]

Means nothing unless you know the downforce levels, gearing etc. And it's quite possible that Hulk had saved his batteries for a big push to protect his lead and Alonso had already used his to catch up. There are a lot of factors at play and you simply cannot do a straight side by side comparison and come up with valid data without knowing what those factors are.

 

In Melbourne Alonso could not even get next to Hulkenberg with DRS open. 

So in terms of Power, the Ferrari is not there I think. Maybe is not that much, but enoguh to prevent the Ferrari cars to get close to the Marcedes in straights.

I'm surprised by the Renault engine though, they addressed things quite nicely after the testing drama.

[EthanM]

 And it's quite possible that Hulk had saved his batteries for a big push to protect his lead 

 

you can't save your charge, Rosberg said something along those lines ... he expected to be able to use charge strategically, force the other guy to use up his while he saved his own blah blah and it turns out you can't do it, as per Rosberg

[Jejking]

You can store up to 4 MJ for cooldown / ramp up laps so unless there is a big laptime difference it's not what either Alonso or Hulk did.

[ExFlagMan]

you can't save your charge, Rosberg said something along those lines ... he expected to be able to use charge strategically, force the other guy to use up his while he saved his own blah blah and it turns out you can't do it, as per Rosberg

I seem to recall reading that it takes 2 laps to fully re-charge the batteries, so you have to save charge at some point if you want to use maximum boost.

[ThomFi]

It could be that the Merc teams have simply done a better on the design stakes.

 

Over the years teams running near the back of the grid have used the engine that was a championship winning engine and it hasn't propelled them to the front. 

 

Why not just listen to people who know what they are talking about. Renault F1 Sport head of track operations Remi Taffin said in Melbourne, the difference is closer to a second than a tenth. Marko said in an interview two days ago, the deficit would be around 80 horsepower.

Ex-F1 drivers like Brundle who observed the cars on the tracks are saying, the Mercedes engine is the most drivable one. And there are also rumours, the Mercedes engine is the best in fuel consumption or is at least better than Renault in this regard.

The strongest engine with the best drivability and possibly lowest fuel consumption, if that isn't the best engine, I don't know. That might change in the future, but for now, that's how it is.

It seems also to be clear, that the work teams are in a better position than the costumer teams. The Lotus chassis is surely not bad, but all the focus of Renault seems to be on Red Bull.

The customer teams of Ferrari and (less so) Mercedes are also struggling more than Ferrari and Mercedes itself.

[ollebompa]

It not so much power related as it is driveability.

Edited by ollebompa, 31 March 2014 - 11:48.

[ReeVe]

It not so much power regulated as it is driveability.

 

welll driveability as I understood is all about finding the most efficient way to blend in the power output from the ICE and the electric motor ... In the Kers days it wasn't so critical cause the drivers used KERS when they had enough grip to compensate for the extra power, now all this needs to be done in software

[Bloggsworth]

in the WDC top10, there are 7 mercedes engined drivers, 2 ferrari, and one renault.

in the WCC top5, there are 4 mercedes engined teams, and one ferrari.

 

in the first race, there were 6 mercedes engined drivers in the top10 (oher 2 retired from a very probable top10 finish, although pushing out another merc engined driver), 2 ferrari, and 2 renault.

in the second race, there were 7 mercedes engined drivers in the top10, 1 ferrari, and 2 renault.

 

in the case of the ferrari points scoring positions, it was always only the works team, in the case of the renault points scoring positions, it was the works team and their sister team.

 

 

 

and you still question that the mercedes engines are the best?

 

Ok, so you've tabulated the reliability, what about the PU, although exactly what polyurethane has to do with anything I'm not sure...

[carlb5253]

Why not just listen to people who know what they are talking about. Renault F1 Sport head of track operations Remi Taffin said in Melbourne, the difference is closer to a second than a tenth. Marko said in an interview two days ago, the deficit would be around 80 horsepower.
Ex-F1 drivers like Brundle who observed the cars on the tracks are saying, the Mercedes engine is the most drivable one. And there are also rumours, the Mercedes engine is the best in fuel consumption or is at least better than Renault in this regard.
The strongest engine with the best drivability and possibly lowest fuel consumption, if that isn't the best engine, I don't know. That might change in the future, but for now, that's how it is.
It seems also to be clear, that the work teams are in a better position than the costumer teams. The Lotus chassis is surely not bad, but all the focus of Renault seems to be on Red Bull.
The customer teams of Ferrari and (less so) Mercedes are also struggling more than Ferrari and Mercedes itself.

So a quote from Renault. Who aren't exactly going to say they have the best engine.

An OPINION from Brundle.

And a rumour.

Means very little.

[ollebompa]

welll driveability as I understood is all about finding the most efficient way to blend in the power output from the ICE and the electric motor ... In the Kers days it wasn't so critical cause the drivers used KERS when they had enough grip to compensate for the extra power, now all this needs to be done in software

Damn autocorrect! I've edited my post.

[Bloggsworth]

Alonso was side by side with Hulkenberg for the entire start/finish straight at one point of the race. Alonso had his DRS wide open and Hulk closed, but the Ferrari wasn't even faster.

 

 

Perhaps he exited the last corner at a higher speed, it is possible that Alonso got too much wheelspin coming out of the final corner, maybe the FI is aerodynamically efficient in a straight line, perhaps the FI+driver weigh less than the Ferrari+driver - Too many variables to ascribe cause and effect to just one thing.

[stillOrange]

So a quote from Renault. Who aren't exactly going to say they have the best engine.

An OPINION from Brundle.

And a rumour.

Means very little.

I must say you have got me confused there.

You say that an engine manufacturer wouldn't want to say that their engine is the best?

[ReeVe]

So a quote from Renault. Who aren't exactly going to say they have the best engine.
 

 

 

hmm why wouldn't they say they have the best engine if they had the best engine? That statement makes no sense to me ... Renault RB and to an extent Lotus have said in pretty plain English they lose between 1 and 1.5 sec in the straights, and that is supported by the sector times and the speed traps ... Otherwise it's a typical prove you're not an elephant argument you're peddling, nobody will ever give you the power curves from their engines so you can do a direct comparisson

[carlb5253]

Basically what people are saying is this.

Put the Renault engine in the Mclaren, Williams and FI then they are running with the back if the field.

Put the Merc engine in the Torro Rosso and they are with the Red Bull

I refuse to believe it.

[carlb5253]

I must say you have got me confused there.

You say that an engine manufacturer wouldn't want to say that their engine is the best?

Yes. They aren't gonna come out and say well, our engine produces 950bhp it's is far superior. It will create havoc. Especially with so much pressure off an out of sorts Red Bull

[stillOrange]

Basically what people are saying is this.

.....

I refuse to believe it.

Well if that is the case then it was pointless for you to open this thread!

[ThomFi]

So a quote from Renault. Who aren't exactly going to say they have the best engine.

An OPINION from Brundle.

And a rumour.

Means very little.

 

Lauda also said the Mercedes engine is the strongest at the moment. Everyone, who followed the pre season tests in Jerez and Bahrain and the first races, knows that there is a consensus between all experts, insiders and observers, that the Mercedes engine is superior at the moment.
But I'm not aware of at least one insider, who shares your view.
 

[seahawk]

Just wait for Bahrain the circuit will give us a clear picture.

[F. Scaramanga]

So perhaps it's partly down to RB's gear ratios/setup choices, ...  

 

We have a winner! 

 

Never trust the Marko-bullshit: "We are the best, only renault is ****..." 

[AnR]

I fully believe what was said Before that the Mercedes PU is 100 hp up

Edited by AnR, 31 March 2014 - 15:32.

[OO7]

Which manufacturer has the most reliable PU thus far?

Edited by Obi Offiah, 31 March 2014 - 15:38.

[sosidge]

I keep seeing all talk of the Merc PU is better than the Reanult and Ferrari and that the W05's advantage is purely PU related.

But we have other Merc powered cars fighting with the Torro Rosso's Ferrari's and RB's.

I see no advantage anywhere.

Can anybody provide 100% proof from a credible source?

We have all heard the hear say. Renault running 60% blah blah. Who knows what Merc are running at?

The fact is nobody does.

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Did you not even look at the results of the last GP? 7 of the top 9 were Mercedes power. Hardly fighting with the Toro Rossos and Saubers. And you only need to watch the cars racing to see the enormous power advantage the Mercs have, literally driving past other cars on corner exit.

[Kobasmashi]

And you only need to watch the cars racing to see the enormous power advantage the Mercs have, literally driving past other cars on corner exit.

That's no exaggeration, look at Bottas and Ricciardo in their qualifying incident or Rosberg and Vettel off the line. Vettel got a decent start but then Rosberg just drove past him.

[TheUltimateWorrier]

purely PU related.

 

Nobody likes toilet humour 

[Kingshark]

Red Bull are slow as a turd down the straight because as they always do, run a lot of downforce. Toro Rosso is showing just how powerful that Renault engine really is by being among the fastest cars in the a straight line.

 

Red Bull aren't even that much faster, if any faster than Mercedes through the corners either. RBR just need someone to pinpoint the blame to, Renault seems like a perfect target after their difficult pre-season testing.

[Petroltorque]

The differences in power units are related to ERS deployment. Irrespective of what sensationalist websites claim you won't get more than 800bhp out of these power units with present fuel flow restrictions. It is clear that Mercedes are best at the ERS integration at present. Red Bull Chassis' side is flattering the Renault, but they were running the ERS at 70% efficiency in Malaysia with a further 10% improvement expected for Bahrein. At some stage this season I would expect the Renault to be a match for Mercedes. The Ferrari unit is struggling And reputed to 13kg over the minimum unit.

[carlb5253]

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Did you not even look at the results of the last GP? 7 of the top 9 were Mercedes power. Hardly fighting with the Toro Rossos and Saubers. And you only need to watch the cars racing to see the enormous power advantage the Mercs have, literally driving past other cars on corner exit.

Mercs are always going to have more cars in the top 10 they supy the most engines.

Lotus can be discarded they are nowhere. And so can Caterham and Marrusia. Meaning Renault and Ferrari only have 1 customer.

[Risil]

Can we say engine instead of power unit/PU please. There's nothing in the word "engine" that can't include energy recovery systems.

[Gorma]

Can we say engine instead of power unit/PU please. There's nothing in the word "engine" that can't include energy recovery systems.

Actually an engine is something that turns energy in to motion and an ERS is the just the opposite of that.

[HoldenRT]

Most of this is blatantly obvious and hard to discuss it, with any sort of patience.  I find the OP tedious and one of those "one sided" ways of looking at things, that people often like to do.

 

Merc have a good chassis and engine.  Others like Williams or McLaren have a good engine but only average chassis.

Redbull have a good chassis and bad engine.

 

Ferrari have an average chassis and engine.  I haven't read a huge amount but it seems there could be weight issues, or power issues, or all of the above.  But it's a solid car in many respects, but clearly not as powerful in the engine as Merc, or as good a chassis either.  Sort of an all rounder, it seems.  Solid in most things but the best at anything.

 

You can argue the specifics of each case, and there's only been a short winter, 3 tests and 2 races.  However what is blatantly clear, is that Merc engine is clearly the best.  A big advantage.  And that Ferrari and Renault engines are weaker.  And that teams like McLaren and Williams are benefitting from that.  And that Redbull have a very good chassis, despite the weak engine.

 

The engine side is the easiest to notice, and that's why I find the OP tedious.  You shouldn't need people to spell it out, it's clear as day and was that way from the winter testing.  The gear ratios are locked, and the teams run different aero configurations but not THAT different.  And the top speeds of all the engines are quite similar.  Ie.. the top speeds of the Mercs are similar.  The top speeds of the Renaults are similar.  The top speeds of the Ferrari's are similar.  Especially on the Fridays when they test the limits of each aero setup.  When they are experimenting, learning the limits and trying to optimise.

 

Learn the sport better and you won't need people to spell it out for you.  Not for the sake of winning internet arguments, or for thinking your team is better or worse (pointless).. but for the sake of understanding the sport better, to be able to enjoy it more.

[handel]

On the BBC they did a laptime comparison with Hamilton vs Vettel. Can't find it on YouTube but might have a look on iPlayer later.

 

Look at the section on the straight... not a damn chance that Renault Engine is more than 20bhp down on the Merc. It really is marginal. If the cars were 100bhp apart than the difference on the straights would be night and day and I think we would have plenty of evidence to support that if it was the case.

[HoldenRT]

Red Bull are slow as a turd down the straight because as they always do, run a lot of downforce. Toro Rosso is showing just how powerful that Renault engine really is by being among the fastest cars in the a straight line.

 

Red Bull aren't even that much faster, if any faster than Mercedes through the corners either. RBR just need someone to pinpoint the blame to, Renault seems like a perfect target after their difficult pre-season testing.

 

That might have been true in 2009 or 2010, but it's like you didn't even see the winter.  The winter where all Renault teams have struggled and have been lucky to do any laps at all.  From catostrophic failure and 50 page topics, to having the fastest engine in the space of a month.  Gotta love this message board.
 

[Risil]

Actually an engine is something that turns energy in to motion and an ERS is the just the opposite of that.

 

For the purpose of turning it back into motion straight after.

[HoldenRT]

Some quotes from Lewis Hamilton..

 

 

"I think it's far too early to rule out anyone [for the Championship]," the 29-year-old told ESPNF1.

 

"Sebastian was massively quick and was applying pressure to Nico. Looking at their pace, their car is just as quick as ours through the corners and just a little bit slower on the straights.

 

"I have no doubts at all that Renault are going to fix that and when they do you are going to see a big race between us and the Bulls.

 

"They still have a fantastic car, I've looked at the GPS and they are the same speed as us through all the corners.

 

"Also, Ferrari are not too far off as well, I think. I think it's going to hot up at some point during the year."

[cairnsie13]

I think it is very difficult to tell how much the power difference is as I am sure in the commentary they were saying the car could still wheel spin in 4th - 5th gear. This means they wont be able apply full throttle till the higher gears. Cars with high downforce and better traction will also be able to apply full throttle earlier, say 4th gear as opposed to 5th. This means really the power difference is only going matter on the very long straights in 5th and above gears. Off course better drivability will help modulate the power to wheels better thus making the car capable of accelerating faster.

Edited by cairnsie13, 31 March 2014 - 18:05.

[ExFlagMan]

Can we say engine instead of power unit/PU please. There's nothing in the word "engine" that can't include energy recovery systems.

Power Unit is the term used in the FIA regulations, so it seems sensible to use it to avoid further misconceptions.
After all it appears that some posters on here are quoting the combined ICE (about 600bhp) and ERS (up to 160bhp) values as the 'engine' output and then others seem to be adding the ERS on to that value to get even higher values.

Edited by ExFlagMan, 31 March 2014 - 18:05.

[Maaarsh]

Why not just listen to people who know what they are talking about. Renault F1 Sport head of track operations Remi Taffin said in Melbourne, the difference is closer to a second than a tenth. Marko said in an interview two days ago, the deficit would be around 80 horsepower.

Ex-F1 drivers like Brundle who observed the cars on the tracks are saying, the Mercedes engine is the most drivable one. And there are also rumours, the Mercedes engine is the best in fuel consumption or is at least better than Renault in this regard.

The strongest engine with the best drivability and possibly lowest fuel consumption, if that isn't the best engine, I don't know. That might change in the future, but for now, that's how it is.

It seems also to be clear, that the work teams are in a better position than the costumer teams. The Lotus chassis is surely not bad, but all the focus of Renault seems to be on Red Bull.

The customer teams of Ferrari and (less so) Mercedes are also struggling more than Ferrari and Mercedes itself.

 

Careful using the argument from expertise - you don't have to look far to find quotes from Brundle's track side observations at practice being rendered laughable by the end of the race, whilst your other commentators have heavy vested interests in putting a certain narrative forward.

[sopa]

So a quote from Renault. Who aren't exactly going to say they have the best engine.

An OPINION from Brundle.

And a rumour.

Means very little.

 

It is not an opinion from a couple of people, but from what I have seen, almost every insider considers Mercedes as the best PU.

 

So if you don't want to believe anyone, what do you base your views and understanding of F1 on?

 

Because none of the engine manufacturers is going to let us come to their factory, let their engine run on the dyno and tell you "See, proof is here - this thing produces so much HP." Then you go to all engine factories and form your opinion.

 

Since you can't get information directly, you have to find the basis on trusting the sources.

[ThomFi]

Careful using the argument from expertise - you don't have to look far to find quotes from Brundle's track side observations at practice being rendered laughable by the end of the race, whilst your other commentators have heavy vested interests in putting a certain narrative forward.

 

Isn't it strange, that everyone in and outside the Red Bull/Renault camp in F1 (Brundle is just one of them) unanimously shares the same standpoint, but some armchair experts driven by an agenda know it better.

Hamilton won with a superior car ? It just can't be, right ? Fanboys adjust the strength of the cars to their liking anyway and talking up Red Bull and Renault  is a common practice on this board. Old habits die hard, I guess.

Edited by ThomFi, 31 March 2014 - 20:43.

[LeMans86]

The statements from the teams answer this question........
Red Bull: "We're quick in the corners, but lose on the straights. PU has to improve"
Mercedes: "Red Bull is quick in the corners, but lose on the straights. When their PU improves / work to its potential, we'll have a real fight on our hands"