64 replies to this topic

[Bluesmoke]

Anyone see their trap speeds at Sepang? Both cars were above 307km at the end of the long straight. During the race, when Alonso pushed, you could see how fast the Renault took off on the straights.

[Menace]

If not THE most powerful, atleast ONE of the most powerful. We don't know if the Renault chassis allows them to run with so much more less wing, but one thing is sure. Theyr engine is top notch!

After the second qualifying, I noted in the qualifying threa that Renault was topping the speeds at every single sector! Mighty impressive indeed!

Mclaren has catch up to do with regard to their engine, thats for sure.

The funny thing is, HSJ seems to have been right all along.

[eoin]

Originally posted by Menace
If not THE most powerful, atleast ONE of the most powerful. We don't know if the Renault chassis allows them to run with so much more less wing, but one thing is sure. Theyr engine is top notch!

After the second qualifying, I noted in the qualifying threa that Renault was topping the speeds at every single sector! Mighty impressive indeed!

Mclaren has catch up to do with regard to their engine, thats for sure.

The funny thing is, HSJ seems to have been right all along.

HSJ was claiming that last years engine was all powerful, different story ;)

Well the current engine has to be very good. Who knows if it is the top engine. There can be many reason for having good top speed at the end of a straight- less wing, better aero eff, better traction out of the corner, better exit speed.

[KenC]

Two things. One, I vaguely recall the new engine when it was first put on the track, one of the drivers commenting, presumably Alonso, who stated that it was already as powerful as the old engine. This raised my eyebrows, because usually, a new engine, given the new rules, is going to be slightly less powerful, and as the season moves along, it regains the lost power. The same happens with the aero. Anyhow, I thought that was a good sign for Renault, if it was true that the new engine was more powerful straight out of the box.

Second, I believe it was AutoSport that was reporting that the Renault design team has gone 180degrees in the opposite direction of current F1 design thinking. Currently, designers try to balance the load between front and rear tyres, as currently, the rear tyres are weight-overloaded relative to their size. However, the Renault designers seem to have gone for a rear-heavy car contrary to what others are trying to do. Their engine is supposedly 20 kg heavier than the lightest engines. They have focussed less on making the rear coke bottle shape small, as others have, particularly Ferrari. The thinking is that the rear-weight bias helps on starts and turn exit. When you think about trap speeds, invariably they are measured at the end of a long straight. The speed measured is not just an indirect indicator of horsepower, but also an indicator of aerodynamics, as well as how well the car puts the power down on turn exit. If you can put the power down earlier while coming out of a turn, then that benefit transfers all the way down a straight, leading to higher top-end speeds. Remember, these speed measurements aren't necessarily terminal velocity of the car.

Anyway, I thought it interesting that Fisico oversteered into Webber. I wondered if that was partially due to the rear-weight bias. Then again, it might have had as much to do with his rear tyres being shot.

[TailHappy]

Originally posted by KenC
Anyway, I thought it interesting that Fisico oversteered into Webber. I wondered if that was partially due to the rear-weight bias. Then again, it might have had as much to do with his rear tyres being shot.

I would have thought that a car that had rear weight bias would be more prone to understeer than oversteer.

Your tyre explanation make more sense.

Then again, he could have just cocked up.

[inaki]

If i recall correctly interviews with Bob Bell, the main asset of this engine is not max power output but a very good torque curve and wide range of utilization. That links with the good traction of the chassis. With the philosophy set up by Gascoygne of 2 different teams working simultaneously in 2 different cars (one for current one, another for next year's) this is the good team that made the R23 and now has produced the R25. Tim Denshaw in charge.

If you review max speed, still F2004M is in very good shape.

[Ice T]

Bild (German tabloid) published what it said were the engine power levels a few days ago - can't find them at the moment. They ranked the BMW as the most powerful, but the Renault wasn't far behind and could even have been second only to the BMW unit.

(Yes, I know Bild is as reliable as the Sun or the Mirror, but still...)

[Pinguin]

I'd say 'one of'. It'll be stupid to categorically claim they have the most powerful without having any data. But certainly worth noting is how well the Renault rockets out of corners. I'm sure that helps their top speeds a little.

[Svenko Wankerov]

The Renault will be nothing compared to the 05 Ferrari engine. Sauber was using able to put up pretty good trap speeds with that unit despite people claiming that Ferrari is delibrately giving them inferior units, so obviously the one in the F2005 will blow everything away.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Menace

The funny thing is, HSJ seems to have been right all along.

It's not funny, it's natural.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Menace
The funny thing is, HSJ seems to have been right all along.

Why? Aren't you amongst those who say that if the 1995 Benetton was an excellent car, that doesn't have to be automatically the case with the 1996 one? Well, if Renault's 2005 engine is very powerful, that didn't have to be the case with their 2003 and 2004 units.

Hrvoje

[Vrba]

Originally posted by HSJ


It's not funny, it's natural.

Why is it never happeneing then?

Hrvoje

[HSJ]

Originally posted by eoin


HSJ was claiming that last years engine was all powerful, different story ;)

Not true. I simply claimed that they were in all probabiliy ahead of Merc. I also considered them behind the likes of Ferrari (including Sauber's) and Honda, and probably BMW and Toyota as well. In fact take a look at this Spa 04 thread and particularly my post #199 for evidence of what I thought of the cars last year.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by HSJ


Not true. I simply claimed that they were in all probabiliy ahead of Merc. I also considered them behind the likes of Ferrari (including Sauber's) and Honda, and probably BMW and Toyota as well. In fact take a look at this Spa 04 thread and particularly my post #199 for evidence of what I thought of the cars last year.

OK, but you were the only one who saw this "probabilty". And we all know why.

Hrvoje

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Vrba
And we all know why.

Hrvoje

Coz I'm so smart.

Anyway, something beyond just engine power has caught my attention. Namely, the Renault is not only powerful, but also incredibly fuel efficient. I mean am I the only one to have taken note of the fact that the Renaults need so little time to put fuel in the car for a given number of laps (length of stint)? It could also help to explain their speed on "heavy" fuel load: their car is significantly lighter despite having the fuel to match the others' stint lengths.

[Ghostrider]

It is not the most powerful in terms of "top peak" power, around 870 bhp.

In terms of drivability and fuel consumption however, I think it is one of the best.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by HSJ


Coz I'm so smart.

No but because you act (dreaming up things included) as if you were paid (and very generously) by KR's manager.

Hrvoje

[madmac]

Originally posted by inaki
If i recall correctly interviews with Bob Bell, the main asset of this engine is not max power output but a very good torque curve and wide range of utilization. That links with the good traction of the chassis. With the philosophy set up by Gascoygne of 2 different teams working simultaneously in 2 different cars (one for current one, another for next year's) this is the good team that made the R23 and now has produced the R25. Tim Denshaw in charge.

If you review max speed, still F2004M is in very good shape.

I agree, outright power is not the be all & end all. This is justification for what a lot of us said when Renault re-entered F1 properly, they know how to win & will win, the prophocey has been fulfilled.

[eoin]

Originally posted by HSJ


Not true. I simply claimed that they were in all probabiliy ahead of Merc. I also considered them behind the likes of Ferrari (including Sauber's) and Honda, and probably BMW and Toyota as well. In fact take a look at this Spa 04 thread and particularly my post #199 for evidence of what I thought of the cars last year.

Calm down! You take everything too seriously.

BTW answer this: if last years renault was as good as you say, why do renault admit to altering the car to make up for it lack of horses? Usually manufactures talk up their engine output, Renault don't.

[RuB]

Originally posted by Vrba
No but because you act (dreaming up things included) as if you were paid (and very generously) by KR's manager.

Hrvoje

isnt he paid?

[HSJ]

Originally posted by eoin


Calm down! You take everything too seriously.

BTW answer this: if last years renault was as good as you say, why do renault admit to altering the car to make up for it lack of horses? Usually manufactures talk up their engine output, Renault don't.

Because they lacked horses compared to the best engines (Ferrari, Honda). Simple. I think you're really confused on this matter. First you posted the above claim about what I thought/claimed, now this.

[Schuperman]

Originally posted by eoin
HSJ was claiming that last years engine was all powerful, different story ;)

I keep on hearing the same old stories repetitively from HSJ i.e. all the other engines except Minardi were more powerful than Merc.. So I dont buy it...

Originally posted by eoin
Well the current engine has to be very good. Who knows if it is the top engine. There can be many reason for having good top speed at the end of a straight- less wing, better aero eff, better traction out of the corner, better exit speed.

Completely agree..

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Schuperman


I keep on hearing the same old stories repetitively from HSJ i.e. all the other engines except Minardi were more powerful than Merc.. So I dont buy it...

Don't forget that he rated McLaren's gearbox at 8th best at one moment ;)

Hrvoje

[Ceejay]

The BMW seems to be using more fuel than the top competition judging by the 1st fuel stop times. Webber = 28.325 secs,
Nick = 29.233 secs compared with Fisi = 26.272. Fisi and Webber stopped on lap 22. Nick's 2nd stop (lap 42) = 27.637, but Alonso = 25.710 secs (lap 40)???

[eoin]

A quote from Ross Brawn.

They seem to have lost the handicap of a poor engine and they've continued with a good car.

autosport-Atlas

[Henrik B]

Originally posted by Ceejay
The BMW seems to be using more fuel than the top competition judging by the 1st fuel stop times.

Or, Williams are the slowest team in the pit.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Everyone join hands and repeat after me....


Trap speeds are not an indication of engine power, and engines are not as important to overall performance as the manufacturers would like us to believe

[skinnylizard]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Everyone join hands and repeat after me....


Trap speeds are not an indication of engine power, and engines are not as important to overall performance as the manufacturers would like us to believe

i would but you are an ass grabber.

id like to know which ones are fuel efficient more than power. shouldnt most of the engines be more or less close a few bhp here and there?

[Ghostrider]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Trap speeds are not an indication of engine power, and engines are not as important to overall performance as the manufacturers would like us to believe

Very true.

[Williams]

Renault's speed at the end of a straight may have more to do with their traction and torque at the beginning of it, along with their aero efficiency.

[Fortymark]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Everyone join hands and repeat after me....


Trap speeds are not an indication of engine power, and engines are not as important to overall performance as the manufacturers would like us to believe

True for the first part, but I havn´t seen a weak engine win a WDC. Of course, engines are important to overall performance, be it HP´s, driveability, fuel consuption etc and the most important......Reliability...
Renault was clearly lacking in the HP department last year but not anymore.

[DaleCooper]

Originally posted by Williams
Renault's speed at the end of a straight may have more to do with their traction and torque at the beginning of it, along with their aero efficiency.

Not really true though. They could just be hitting their "wall" sooner. They may be able to get up to speed quicker, but you still need the horses to push all that air. Air resistance is by far the most critical factor in achieving top speed. I think downforce settings play a much greater role, in combination with top engine power. perhaps the Renault has a more efficient aero package, this could easily allow them to run less wing, leading to less air resistance, and higher top speeds.

Your assertion would only mean that they have a speed advantage over the first half of a straight let's say, but not over top speed figures necessarily. Of course if the straight in question is short, and the cars don't get near their top speeds, then you would likely be right.


Cooper

[Kenaltgr]

The following was posted on Usenet 22/03/2005

"Quattroruote, the figures it gives for Melbourne
are as follows:

F. Alonso (Renault) - 940 bhp (RS-25)
G. Fisichella (Renault) 940 bhp (RS-25)
K. Raikkonen (McLaren) - 920 bhp (Mercedes Benz FO-110R)
J. Montoya (McLaren 920 bhp (Mercedes Benz FO-110R)
J. Trulli (Toyota) - 935 bhp (RVX-05)
R. Schumacher (Toyota) - 935 bhp (RVX-05)
M. Webber (Williams) 938 bhp (BMW P84/5)
M. Schumacher (Ferrari) - 935 bhp (053M)
D. Coulthard (Red Bull) 915 bhp (Cosworth Racing TJ 2005)
J. Button (BAR) 955bhp (Honda RA005E)
F. Massa (Sauber) 925bhp Petronas 05A (Ferrari 053)


Notes -

The figures are based on both qualifying runs with the engines running at
maximum revs. (Quattroruote)

It also mentions that Bernard Dudot, stating the the RS-25 is a huge leap in
performance not just in pure BHP, but driveablilty and torque. The Sauber
engines are de-tuned Ferrari type-053 engines designed to last 2 races, not
the modified stepping Ferrari used at the Australian GP."

[eoin]

Originally posted by Kenaltgr
The following was posted on Usenet 22/03/2005

"Quattroruote, the figures it gives for Melbourne
are as follows:

F. Alonso (Renault) - 940 bhp (RS-25)
G. Fisichella (Renault) 940 bhp (RS-25)
K. Raikkonen (McLaren) - 920 bhp (Mercedes Benz FO-110R)
J. Montoya (McLaren 920 bhp (Mercedes Benz FO-110R)
J. Trulli (Toyota) - 935 bhp (RVX-05)
R. Schumacher (Toyota) - 935 bhp (RVX-05)
M. Webber (Williams) 938 bhp (BMW P84/5)
M. Schumacher (Ferrari) - 935 bhp (053M)
D. Coulthard (Red Bull) 915 bhp (Cosworth Racing TJ 2005)
J. Button (BAR) 955bhp (Honda RA005E)
F. Massa (Sauber) 925bhp Petronas 05A (Ferrari 053)


Notes -

The figures are based on both qualifying runs with the engines running at
maximum revs. (Quattroruote)

It also mentions that Bernard Dudot, stating the the RS-25 is a huge leap in
performance not just in pure BHP, but driveablilty and torque. The Sauber
engines are de-tuned Ferrari type-053 engines designed to last 2 races, not
the modified stepping Ferrari used at the Australian GP."

Sauber are using the 055, so I think we can ignore those figures.

[SpyderGTF1]

interisting fact from sepang

second pit lap 41
truli 6.6 sec
49 liter 12 laps

second pit lap 41
heidfeld 8.7 sec
74 liter 18 laps

[ferrarista]

Kenaltgr, can you be more precise about the source of your info?

I mean, i buy each month "Quattroruote" magazine and it's from September 2003 that they don't give power figures anymore.

I'll buy tomorrow the latest issue, but i can anticipate after visiting their site (http://www.quattroruote.it ) that the current Quattroruote doesn't publish the figures for Melbourne.

[Pep]

James Allen wrote this in www.itv-f1.com:

I like Honda’s racing attitude very much and they will get it right but at the moment they have been very aggressive with the two-race engine and it is catching them out.

I understand that Mr Kiuchi, the F1 programme boss took the decision when the two-race engine rule was announced, to make the new one-race engine they had planned into a two-race unit. BMW had a similarly aggressive one-race engine planned and they shelved it for reliability’s sake.

Kiuchi challenged his engineers to make the one-race engine last two races and at the moment they have not succeeded.

It has plenty of grunt, around 960bhp.

Kiuchi is determined to get 1000bhp out of this engine by the end of the season, remember this is the last year of the 3 litre engines before the switch to 2.4litre V8s next year.

Perhaps Honda has the most powerful engine (certainly Kimi seemed to pass Kimi easily in Seapang, although Kimi stopped 3 laps later than Alonso, for example), but also the most unreliable.

[Kenaltgr]

Originally posted by ferrarista
Kenaltgr, can you be more precise about the source of your info?

I mean, i buy each month "Quattroruote" magazine and it's from September 2003 that they don't give power figures anymore.

I'll buy tomorrow the latest issue, but i can anticipate after visiting their site (http://www.quattroruote.it ) that the current Quattroruote doesn't publish the figures for Melbourne.

I just copied and pasted what was posted on rec.autos.sport.f1. Somone called 'Oslinvach' posted the information under the subject "Australian Grand Prix Engine BHP figures".

BTW, what engine is Sauber using, Setanta tv race commentator said it was type 053 in Sepang, others have said 055?

[kilcoo316]

I guess the power figures above are based on acoustics - getting the revs???

not all the cars will have the same stroke, indeed, the renaults wide torque band may indicate it operates at less (max) revs than the others - also leading to improved fuel efficiency.

[Ross Stonefeld]

And the accoustics on the 2005 Ferrari will be different from 2004 Ferrari, and from race to race the accoustics are different depending on broadcaster. The Suzuka onboards have a distinctive "hollow" sound

[kilcoo316]

well - I guess the measurements are taken trackside using different -instruments from the standard TV cameras, they wouldn't have a high enough frame rate to cope with 19-20,000 rpm (would they?)

[Thunder]

I am sorry but, without knowing which gear ratios they use, how much rear wing they use, how can you compare engines at all? Somes talk from their ass.

[Isamu77]

Originally posted by Thunder
I am sorry but, without knowing which gear ratios they use, how much rear wing they use, how can you compare engines at all? Somes talk from their ass.

couldnt agree more.
never ever believe anything in RC concerning engines
the baloney that is spewed out from people is entertaining nevertheless

[ferrarista]

As i thought, no article about power figures is written on the April issue of Quattroruote. So the post on Usenet turns out to be pure falsity

Then, another proof that the figures aren't true comes from the fact that in Australia Schumacher didn't participate in the second qualif and in the first one there was aquaplaning here and there because he used intermediate tyres on an extremely wet track. So i don't believe he was able to run max revs and consequently no relevant figure could have been measured in those conditions.

[kodandaram]

I doubt Renault have the most powerful engine . I think BMW and Toyota are on top right now. And Cosworth is not far behind . Neither is Honda

I reckon Mercedes , the old ferrari engine in the back of the Sauber and the F2004 M (which has raced its last now) and Renault are in one group behind Toyota , honda, BMW.

But certainly Renault seem to have enough power and great aero which gives them good straightline speed . I think their aero and chassis quality flatters their engine performance - not that its weak but its not the most powerful out there. But it is very frugal and reliable and seems it still has a lot more low end and starting torque than the others.

[ferrarista]

Originally posted by kodandaram
I doubt Renault have the most powerful engine . I think BMW and Toyota are on top right now. And Cosworth is not far behind . Neither is Honda

I reckon Mercedes , the old ferrari engine in the back of the Sauber and the F2004 M (which has raced its last now) and Renault are in one group behind Toyota , honda, BMW.

But certainly Renault seem to have enough power and great aero which gives them good straightline speed . I think their aero and chassis quality flatters their engine performance - not that its weak but its not the most powerful out there. But it is very frugal and reliable and seems it still has a lot more low end and starting torque than the others.

Can i know where do you base the affirmation that Ferrari is behind Toyota, BMW and Honda and equal with Mercedes?

Last year Honda and Ferrari were ahead of both BMW and Toyota and in 2005 Honda didn't lose power (in fact they blow up the engines after few hundreds of miles right and left), BMW lost power and revs, Toyota remained with the same power of last year, Ferrari engine (according to schumi) isn't "that much different" from last year => more or less the same power. So, considering this reasoning, Honda, Ferrari and Toyota might be the most powerful engines, with the BMW behind them.

Top speeds: we know top speed is influenced a lot by the aero set up, but it is remarkable that with their problems in aerodynamics and grip the F2004M was at the top along with the Renaults, with the Saubers very close to them. Another clue that the Ferrari 053 is at the very top level.

RPM: have you seen on TV the revs counter? A Renault engineer said last year that it gives nearly precise values in absolute terms, but it's helpful to measure the difference in revs among the manufacturers.
Well, at Sepang Villeneuve in the first qualifying almost went to the 19000 rpm mark and it was a regular value measured in fourth and fifth gear (so no TC); in the second qualifying Ralf's engine passed only slightly 18500 rpm. More revs doesn't mean necessarily more power, but this fact should make you wonder if Ferrari's engine is better than Toyota's.

I would have all the elements to say Ferrari engine is the best as far as power is concerned, but now i want to say it's on par with the others (waiting for the new 055); in conclusion, i'd like to know the motivations which make you say the 053 is even equal with the crap Mercedes.

[Anna-Poletaeva]

the setup of the car anyway affects the speed, aero, gear configuration.
remeber a few years back when Arrows was setting the fastest trap times, did they have the most powerful engine?

[SpyderGTF1]

Originally posted by ferrarista


Can i know where do you base the affirmation that Ferrari is behind Toyota, BMW and Honda and equal with Mercedes?

Last year Honda and Ferrari were ahead of both BMW and Toyota and in 2005 Honda didn't lose power (in fact they blow up the engines after few hundreds of miles right and left), BMW lost power and revs, Toyota remained with the same power of last year, Ferrari engine (according to schumi) isn't "that much different" from last year => more or less the same power. So, considering this reasoning, Honda, Ferrari and Toyota might be the most powerful engines, with the BMW behind them.

Top speeds: we know top speed is influenced a lot by the aero set up, but it is remarkable that with their problems in aerodynamics and grip the F2004M was at the top along with the Renaults, with the Saubers very close to them. Another clue that the Ferrari 053 is at the very top level.

RPM: have you seen on TV the revs counter? A Renault engineer said last year that it gives nearly precise values in absolute terms, but it's helpful to measure the difference in revs among the manufacturers.
Well, at Sepang Villeneuve in the first qualifying almost went to the 19000 rpm mark and it was a regular value measured in fourth and fifth gear (so no TC); in the second qualifying Ralf's engine passed only slightly 18500 rpm. More revs doesn't mean necessarily more power, but this fact should make you wonder if Ferrari's engine is better than Toyota's.

I would have all the elements to say Ferrari engine is the best as far as power is concerned, but now i want to say it's on par with the others (waiting for the new 055); in conclusion, i'd like to know the motivations which make you say the 053 is even equal with the crap Mercedes.

-----------------------
rank Powerfull engine
1. BWM
2. Toyota
3. Honda
3. Ferrari
4. Renault
5. Mclaren
6. CW

and
interisting fact from sepang

second pit lap 41
truli 6.6 sec
49 liter 12 laps to finish

second pit lap 41
heidfeld 8.7 sec
74 liter 18 laps finish

Toyota more low fuel consumption
rank of low fuel consumption
1. renault
2. toyota
3. mclaren
4. ferrari
5. bmw
6. honda

[ferrarista]

Originally posted by SpyderGTF1


-----------------------
rank Powerfull engine
1. BWM
2. Toyota
3. Honda
3. Ferrari
4. Renault
5. Mclaren
6. CW

What are your motivations?

It's a bit strange to see Honda and Ferrari behind BMW

[Isamu77]

someone who still believes DR Mario Thiessen PR
I remember him saying last year BMW still had most power

Race Tech says otherwise