92 replies to this topic

[Henri Greuter]

Having seen japan and a few other races in which Kimi and JPM anniliated the field I began to wonder.

The past years there was the complain about the all dominant Ferraris.
Yup, F2002 set records in 2002 that are still unbroken.
F2004 won an awful lut too but I do remember a number of races in which MS had to work hard for the victory. F2004 was not as superior over its opposition as F2002 was.


Now I know that this year's McLaren is driven by two of the best 5 drivers in the business, so some of the incredible performances of the Mac are driver related for sure.

But I can't help feeling that if the cars had been more reliable and a bit more luck and less driver errors, the second half of this F1 season should have been a reïncarnation of the 2002 and 1988 seasons when one utterly dominant car humiliated the opposition.

Am I alone in my feelings that this year's McLaren performancewise was more superior over its opponents than most of the 2000-2004 era Ferrari's were over their rivals,with exception of the F2002?


Henri

[PeppeF1]

I don´t think so, if it would have been closer in the championship (drivers) then Renault in the hands of a topdriver (MS/KR/JPM/FA for example) could have gone a lot faster instead of going for reliability and podium finishes like they did.

[Peter]

When McLaren use "one race" engines in their cars, and everyone else uses "two race" engines, McLaren are bound to be quicker.

The clever trick is to use the rules in this way and take a 10 place (max) penalty, knowing that you can run longer and regain those places easily in the race. I wonder if anyone has worked out how much extra power you need to run the extra laps with a higher fuel load?

Of course, when you don't have to take any actual penalty - as in Suzuka, it helps an awful lot more!

If the rules were actually enforced, of one engine per two races, McLaren would have run out of engines long before everyone else!

[peroa]

Originally posted by Peter
When McLaren use "one race" engines in their cars, and everyone else uses "two race" engines, McLaren are bound to be quicker.

The clever trick is to use the rules in this way and take a 10 place (max) penalty, knowing that you can run longer and regain those places easily in the race. I wonder if anyone has worked out how much extra power you need to run the extra laps with a higher fuel load?

Of course, when you don't have to take any actual penalty - as in Suzuka, it helps an awful lot more!

If the rules were actually enforced, of one engine per two races, McLaren would have run out of engines long before everyone else!

Macs are the only one who have won 2 races with the same engine twice in this season.

[Orin]

Maybe I'm forgetting the 2002 season, but I think the 2004 was the most dominant car we've seen for a very long time: as Williams and McLaren faltered at the start of the season the effect was even more exaggerated, it was only much later in the season when these two teams offered any kind of serious competition. So the first half of 2004 for me was Ferrari 1st, followed by a very distant BAR, with the others even further behind. Perhaps the only chink in Ferrari's armour was their qualifying pace, which was 'only' very good rather than dominating.

I do think the McLaren has been exceptional this year, but only from San Marino onwards: before that point Renault was the better car. Contrast this with Ferrari who have in recent years hit the blocks running from race 1. Also, I don't think it's right to exclude reliability from the equation: when Ferrari dominated they combined race pace with unparalled reliability, you cannot call a car dominant if it can't finish races.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
But I can't help feeling that if the cars had been more reliable and a bit more luck and less driver errors, the second half of this F1 season should have been a reïncarnation of the 2002 and 1988 seasons when one utterly dominant car humiliated the opposition.

Lots of IF's and BUT's there.

The facts are that the cars were not as reliable, and more mistakes have been made, therefore I'd still put the Ferrari performance as the more dominant.

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Clatter


Lots of IF's and BUT's there.

The facts are that the cars were not as reliable, and more mistakes have been made, therefore I'd still put the Ferrari performance as the more dominant.

I know what you mean.
I got the feeling after remembering some races in which MS was forced to work for the victory, like France, Canada, England. He didn't ran away in the distance those races like we saw Kimi and JPM do, or early in the season the Renaults. OK, there were also Austrailia, Hungary (field humiliated) and Monza (great come back races by both MS and RB)
Reliabilitywise, the mentioned Ferrari's did much better indeed. It was indeed the difference in level of performance over the rest of the field that puzzled me. It also came on me because this past week I reviewed the 2004 season another time.

But for one reason or another it appears to me that Kimi and JPM, if not hit by penalties that forced them to claw back through the field, had it somewhat easier and only Alons being a guaranteed force to reckon with.
But I could be wrong and I agree, there is a lot of if and buts.

But maybe we must be glad for those buts because had Kimi started in the first two rows more often we would have missed a number of good drives throught the field. And with more reliability he had likely been a runaway champion, despite all the goods Alonso had to offer.

Henri

[SkorbiF1]

In the latter part of the season Mclaren has been very fast. IMO almost as fast as F2004 or F2002 were averagely throughout the season. But reliability is nowhere near those Ferraris.

A funny OFFTOPIC thing I came up with however. In 2002 and 2004, we had one man fighting for the WDC, Michael Schumacher. In 2005 we had two guys fighting for it Alonso and Raikkonen.

Now, If we take Schumacher out of 2002 and 2004 seasons, Ferrari #2 Rubens Barrichello would have become the WDC by a clear margin.

But, if we take out Alonso and Raikkonen from 2005 season, the situation would be this before China:

Michael Schumacher	[B]85[/B] points 5 victories

Juan-Pablo Montoya	[B]73[/B] points 5 victories

Giancarlo Fisichella  [B]70[/B] points 2 victories

Jarno Trulli		  [B]65[/B] points 3 victories

Ralf Schumacher	   [B]65[/B] points 0 victories



Heidfeld would also have two wins and Button would have taken his first at Spa

Schumacher would once again be the WDC with his Ferrari, and no-one would say that Mclaren or Renault are as dominant as F2004 or F2002.

[V10 Fireworks]

In a comparable number of races, the 05 Mac and the 02/04 Ferraris are comparably dominant.


Yes for 2/3rds of the season, the McLaren has been just as dominant as the Ferrari, I can't see any reason that is not true.

Ferrari weren't always that dominant, certainly not pole everywhere, if they were crushingly fast then they didn't run at full wick much of the time, and made lots of the wins harder than necessary.

Remember Ferrari's margin over the field varied, they didn't always get pole even in 04 nor 02 and sometimes they weren't that much faster than the others at all... lots of wins for Schumi appeared out of 4 stop strategies, not-that-easy wins in Canada, Spain etc. where they had to leapfrog some Renaults and things and Schumi had to do super pit-laps in last year's pit-stop races, I think this was last year as I recall it

[Tubbs]

Originally posted by Orin
Contrast this with Ferrari who have in recent years hit the blocks running from race 1. Also, I don't think it's right to exclude reliability from the equation: when Ferrari dominated they combined race pace with unparalled reliability, you cannot call a car dominant if it can't finish races.

Ferrari won their first race with the new car from 1999 to 2004. Incredible.

[kenny]

When will people realise that dominance is not only about speed...
To be dominant it isn't enough to be quick, but you also have to finish the races...
Hell, I would even say Renault has been more dominant than McLaren this year...
too many ups and downs at McLaren, while at Renault you see a constant line...

Anyway, I think neither were dominant as the 1988 McLaren, 1992-1993 Williams or the 2001-2002-2004 Ferrari were...

[Tubbs]

Originally posted by kenny
When will people realise that dominance is not only about speed...

Never if it doesn't fit their agenda.

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by kenny
When will people realise that dominance is not only about speed...
To be dominant it isn't enough to be quick, but you also have to finish the races...
Hell, I would even say Renault has been more dominant than McLaren this year...
too many ups and downs at McLaren, while at Renault you see a constant line...

Anyway, I think neither were dominant as the 1988 McLaren, 1992-1993 Williams or the 2001-2002-2004 Ferrari were...

Hi Kenny,

I am aware of the importance of reliability. In fact I think that this element is what makes a string of performances look so dominating and `overshadows`the amounts of efforts to pull off that string of efforts. Again, watch over 2004 and read it over and you'll see/read that what appeared to be yet another MS whitewash wasn't that easy after all and requiring some innovative strategy, hard pittwork and, indeed, luck.
Luck like Trulli retiring prematurely in Canada, and saving themselves a third stop for fresh rear tires at Indy because of being able to preserving the tires during the safety car period because of Ralf's accident. Could be that MCLaren had similar expereinces but I must admit I am not aware of those, would like to hear about it if existing.
I think that many will rate the 2004 Ferrari more dominant than the 2005 McLaren simply because at least one of them was always up there in the top 3 if not in the top 2, not mentioning both of them in the top 2.
Yet after again seeing a number of the 2004 races I got the impression that, although they were indeed always up there, it appears as if it took on a number of occasions much more efforts for Ferrari to actually be there compared with the number of races we saw this year ever since Imola when the Macs simply left for victory or retirement.
So for me, somehow in performance level they appear to be more dominant than the F2004 was. There were hardly any climbs from the back of the field for Ferrari last year other than at Monza. Kimi did it several times this year already and won despite several handicaps. But due to the mishaps that befell the Mac drivers the results don't appear to be as dominant as Ferrai in 2004 and 2002. Though some of the Mac victories this year were utterly crushing the rivals.
That was what I am curious for if I am alone with these feelings yes or no.

But I do understand what you're trying to say, OK?

Henri

[Fortymark]

No.
When Ferrari was dominant like in 2002 and 2004 they were the only top team on Bridgestone.
Montoya said it all during the press conference in Brazil this year. Back then the Bridgestone were an superior tyre. Good that it finally came out from a Michelin driver.

The MP4/20 is a great car with great tyres but the Renault is more reliable and not far off the pace. Sometimes even quicker.

The Mclaren drivers duo of Raikkonen and Montoya is clearly better than MS and Rubens IMO.

[Weber]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Having seen japan and a few other races in which Kimi and JPM anniliated the field I began to wonder.

The past years there was the complain about the all dominant Ferraris.
Yup, F2002 set records in 2002 that are still unbroken.
F2004 won an awful lut too but I do remember a number of races in which MS had to work hard for the victory. F2004 was not as superior over its opposition as F2002 was.


Now I know that this year's McLaren is driven by two of the best 5 drivers in the business, so some of the incredible performances of the Mac are driver related for sure.

But I can't help feeling that if the cars had been more reliable and a bit more luck and less driver errors, the second half of this F1 season should have been a reïncarnation of the 2002 and 1988 seasons when one utterly dominant car humiliated the opposition.

Am I alone in my feelings that this year's McLaren performancewise was more superior over its opponents than most of the 2000-2004 era Ferrari's were over their rivals,with exception of the F2002?


Henri

Comparing with a McLaren since Imola and also with 100% reliability, I'd say it's true. Illustrates perfectly that you need reliability to succeed though.

[F1 Tor.]

I think it's a bit different. The 2002 and 2004 Ferrari's were super reliable and fast-so much so that the opposition knew the race was over before it even began. There was definately a sense of invincibility during those years. Mac was very good this year but reliabilty sucked and it wasn't till the second part of the season that teams realized that unless Mac's had a problem, there was no chance. You can't compare half a season to Ferrari's 2002/2004 season.

[dde]

It's not the same kind of domination.

The MP4/20, since Imola and performance wise, is systematicaly the dominant car. Something like 0.5s a lap faster than the second best, itself 1s faster than the 3rd best.

The F2002 was sometimes 2s a lap faster in race trim, but also could be slower in qual.

The F2004 was not as dominant as the F2002.

[Viktor]

I would put this years McLaren between the 2001 and 2002/2004 Ferraris, its not super dominent as the 2002 or 2004 Ferrari but it has more of a edge over the other cars then the 2001 Ferrari.

/Viktor

[doremi]

This year's Mclaren has the speed advantage that 2002/2004 Ferraris had over its opponents but not the reliability. So, I don't think they are as dominant.

[rfus]

Originally posted by Fortymark
The Mclaren drivers duo of Raikkonen and Montoya is clearly better than MS and Rubens IMO.

While I would agree they are probably a faster driver pairing Montoya's nack for finding trouble (even when it isn't really his fault) doesn't really make the driver pairing better at least this year anyway.

It seems to me that on straight out pace the mac has been as dominant as the f2004/2002 but it has had crap reliability and didn't hit the ground with all pistons firing at the start of the season.

[Hyatt]

from after Imola on the McLaren is much much more dominant then the Ferrari ever was ... because its beating a very strong Renault using the same tyres .....
Ferraris should thank BS for their dominant years ....

[Pinguin]

Originally posted by Hyatt
.....
Ferraris should thank BS for their dominant years ....

Exactly my point.

The current McLaren MP4-20 is by no means comparable to the F2002/F2004 onthe grounds of reliability -or lack of it.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Hyatt
from after Imola on the McLaren is much much more dominant then the Ferrari ever was ... because its beating a very strong Renault using the same tyres .....
Ferraris should thank BS for their dominant years ....

No Ferrari should thank their engineers for designing and building an excellent car, and for the other teams making so many mistakes with theirs.

[Alexandros]

Originally posted by Hyatt
from after Imola on the McLaren is much much more dominant then the Ferrari ever was ... because its beating a very strong Renault using the same tyres .....
Ferraris should thank BS for their dominant years ....

Same brand - different, softer, tires. Since Imola - as you noted. Without the softers, mclaren would be nowhere. And this also had risks. Remember briatore and alonso dancing over mclaren's corpse after nirburgring because they made the right tire choice? Or what mclaren experience in Monza? Even in the last GP, Mclaren were experiencing very heavy tire wear on half the tread's width on the outer side. But that's kind of unaccounted for because people think it's only the car or the engine (yeah, that mclaren has 7 short-gears to deploy whatever engine power, is the same with casual 6 gears)..

And of course the drivers make no difference. That's a given..
[/irony mode]

[ademm]

Nobody knows how 3rd car rule affect the results. McLaren has a huge advantage there. Whereas 3rd drivers gave precious data to Raikkonen, many times Alonso had to settle for much less running on fridays. This is why McLaren doesnt deserv WCC, and i hope they dont win it.

[mclarenroxxors]

Originally posted by Clatter


No Ferrari should thank their engineers for designing and building an excellent car, and for the other teams making so many mistakes with theirs.

they didnt this year... oh wait that was tyres right?

[Hyatt]

Same brand - different, softer, tires. Since Imola - as you noted. Without the softers, mclaren would be nowhere.

must be the Hell of a chassis to allow the use of a softer compound than the competition

And this also had risks. Remember briatore and alonso dancing over mclaren's corpse after nirburgring because they made the right tire choice?

oh yeah, now we know it ... Kimi flatspottet his tyre because of Renaults tyrechoice

Or what mclaren experience in Monza?

according to the Team a setup-related tyreproblem, but im sure you know it better ...

Even in the last GP, Mclaren were experiencing very heavy tire wear on half the tread's width on the outer side.

well, they are on the limit, so what?

But that's kind of unaccounted for because people think it's only the car or the engine (yeah, that mclaren has 7 short-gears to deploy whatever engine power, is the same with casual 6 gears)..

please try to rephrase that, thanks.

[mikedeering]

Ferrari in 2002 and 2004 were the complete package. MS and RB rarely made mistakes. Their strategy always seemed to be spot on. The cars were bullet-proof, but also sufficiently fast as well. Their dominance was not just down to the performance of their car but their performance across all areas - by doing everything slightly better than anyone else they dominated.

McLaren have built a very fast car. In Raikkonen and JPM they have 2 of the fastest drivers around. However, in other areas they are not so good. The team makes mistakes. Reliability isn't brilliant. The drivers (mainly JPM in truth) make mistakes, or at least have habit of getting involved in incidents. On sheer pace, the McLaren probably enjoys a similar performance advantage other the other teams that Ferrari had in 2002 and 2004. The difference is that in other areas they let themselves down, and so they find themselves 2 points behind in the WCC with a race to go rather than scoring 250 points and winning it in August.

Only Alonso has really kept them honest in the second half of the year - regularly taking advantage of McLaren's mistakes.

[peroa]

Can you show us a picture of that ?

I can tell that on KR car after the race the tyres looked just great, all 4 grooves.

RTL showed it after the race, their reporter was standing right infront of the car for quite a long time.

So please feel free to provide some material.

Oh, you can see the latest wallpaper from Suzuka on

www.mclaren.com .

[Alexandros]

must be the Hell of a chassis to allow the use of a softer compound than the competition

It's certainly a good chassis with very good suspension. Non abusive tire handling by the driver also helps (Montoya sais he couldn't exactly drive as he knows to and that's only improving as of late - all according to him..).

But in the same way that Montoya sais he is not suited to drive as he likes, Alonso IS and Fisichella on the other hand, can't really take advantage of that suspension/tire philosophy which requires "abuse". He has said so himself. Fisi is a clean driver and would probably benefit more from a car like Mclaren.

oh yeah, now we know it ... Kimi flatspottet his tyre because of Renaults tyrechoice

Actually Alonso had flatspotted his own with visible vibrations, but his problem was not as large. In the end it came down to how much a tire got flatspotted, and which suspension collapsed. While Kimi are fast to blame him for his "error", it's rediculous to say that a flatspot equates with a retirement. When exactly has a suspension collapsed due to a flatspotted tire? I think Mclaren's suspension had a bigger share of blame than Kimi.

according to the Team a setup-related tyreproblem, but im sure you know it better ...

And MS/Ferrari sometime say that it's the whole package, so that they don't blame bridgestone. It's PR-stuff and good relations with michelin - whom after all are not entirely responsible for Mclaren's softer preference. Just a week or two prior to racing in Monza, Mclaren put hundreds if not thousands of kilometers and they were clearly ahead of the others. Why would they suddenly gamble and "tweek" their proven and tested in long-runs setup to something dangerous? For what purpose? Beating the others, more? The only difference was that the drivers were pushing more and using more track/kerbs/soil - as it's a race. And the outer edges of the tire couldn't quite handle this type of abuse.

well, they are on the limit, so what?

They're on the limit of softs. Alonso wouldn't be able to drive 20 laps and have the tires cope, with the way he throws the car in corners and waits the tires to grip-him out which kind of reminds me some characteristics of Schumi's driving style in some cases. So he can fit the hards and complain that Mclaren are faster. The naked truth is that 2 cars can only be compared on the same tire and driver. Personally I think that Kimi could drive a renault with softer tire and still beat a mclaren, because instead of going AGAINST physics (abrupt change of direction), he gains speed WITH physics (opening the car trajectory to include the limit of the trac/kerbs/soil as available road).

please try to rephrase that, thanks.

For sure. I'm saying that some people go to weird lengths to prove mclaren's superiority claiming they're superior on everything, just because they're fast. They're not really content with Mclaren having a good package with superior aero/suspension/tire/driver combo, they also want mercedes to be the best engine on the grid. But a direct comparison through their visible speed and trap speeds is flawed since power deployment in the Mclaren is on the limit through the use of 7 gears (proved to be short geared - and while in this GP there was the "mishap" of hitting the limiter under slipstream, it also proves the marginal philosophy of taking advantage every last drop of power under normal cicrcumstances) rather than 6 of the Renault. Actually Renault often hits high speeds in the straights which means the 6th is geared medium to long to achieve this and this would imply that the engine dosn't really max out, not even under slipstream. And from all the videos and rpm data I've seen, it validates my analysis.

Practically this means that the mercedes is fully taken advantage of through their gearbox to give the visible performance that it does, while Renault isn't. I also remember the time when BMW had a heck of an engine and Williams/BMW took the decision to go with the 7gear-box for their next season with the overall speed increasing significantly from this.

...

peroa,

Can you show us a picture of that ?

No. They're all imprinted on my mind. I clearly remember Montoya in Interlagos. He had something like 2 groves missing. IIRC Kimi only had one and is generally more ok with the tires (as far as road contact is concerned) but due to his more open trajectories the tire is in danger by off-road and kerb factors (hence the faster destruction of his tire in Monza, vs Montoya's later disintegration (of course he might have been notified by mid-race, to not be as aggressive with the kerbs)

[Pilla]

I think the Ferrari could be more dominant than you think. By focusing on reliability they must have had something a bit extra hidden away. I dont think Ferrari pushed their car as hard as Mclaren does.

[man from martinlaakso]

As many of you have written, Mac's reliability is too poor compared to Ferrari2002/2004, that it could be called a truly dominant car. It is true, that after the third race in this season McLaren has been the fastest car in practically every GP (I am not sure about Canada, Renault seemed to have an edge there, but probably the Mac would have been stronger at the end phase), but 4 technical DNFs, four penalties for engine changes (all to KR) and one team error (Malaysia) together with JPM's astounding ability to be at the wrong place in the wrong time have caused Mac loosing one title and perhaps loosing the other, too. The Renault car has been relatively close to McLaren during the whole season and in Suzuka almost at the same line. In Ferrari's earlier 2002/2004 cases ALL the rivals were much behind Ferrari.

[speedy]

Originally posted by Pilla
I think the Ferrari could be more dominant than you think. By focusing on reliability they must have had something a bit extra hidden away. I dont think Ferrari pushed their car as hard as Mclaren does.

Agree - I always thought that we never had a proper chance to see the full potential of that car, it was not needed as the opposition was so weak.

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Pilla
I think the Ferrari could be more dominant than you think. By focusing on reliability they must have had something a bit extra hidden away. I dont think Ferrari pushed their car as hard as Mclaren does.

Which one doe you refer to?
I agree with you if it is about the F2002. But F2004 really had to be made work hard on several occasions, France in particular.

And if about F2002, I think the best performance ever for that car must have been Belgium.
Michael's first ever pole at Belgium was in 2002, he won the pole despite the fierce opposition of JPM in the Williams who regularly was more than a match for the MS/Ferrari combo.
And in the race Rubens left the field as if they were standing still while Michael did the same with Rubens. The up till that time most awesome car ever being let loose at the most awesome track of them all by one of the worlds finest drivers of that moment.
For those who only favor wheel to wheel duels, overtaking etc. nothing to get excited about (the more while it was that dreaded MS in one of those hated Ferraris doing it....) but still, it was something special to see if you realized what you were looking at.


And about having the biggest advantage on your rivals ever.
Anyone dare to guess in which race and which driver won with the largest difference in time between him and the number two in the race?


Henri

[Tubbs]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter

But F2004 really had to be made work hard on several occasions, France in particular.

Henri

Funny you chose France since that race IMO epitomized the superiority of F2004 perhaps better than any other. After all Schumacher won with that ridiculous four(!!) stop strategy which most certainly was not the optimal way to get through the race.

Michael's first ever pole at Belgium was in 2002, he won the pole despite the fierce opposition of JPM in the Williams who regularly was more than a match for the MS/Ferrari combo.

Wasn't it Kimi in the MP4-17 and not JPM who was second on the grid at Spa 2002?

[Speed_A]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Anyone dare to guess in which race and which driver won with the largest difference in time between him and the number two in the race?

Jackie Stewart won with more than 4 minutes over Graham Hill at the rainy Nürburgring in 1968. Damon Hill won by 2 laps over ??? (Panis?) in Adelaide 1995. If that's what you asked, Henri ;)

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Speed_A
Jackie Stewart won with more than 4 minutes over Graham Hill at the rainy Nürburgring in 1968. Damon Hill won by 2 laps over ??? (Panis?) in Adelaide 1995. If that's what you asked, Henri ;)

I closed the message too early, I forgot to add: the largest margin of victory since 2000 till 2004, so within the Era of dominance by Ferrari.

And indeed, your answers are correct to my knowledge.
Sorry for failing to complete my original question.


henri

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Tubbs


Funny you chose France since that race IMO epitomized the superiority of F2004 perhaps better than any other. After all Schumacher won with that ridiculous four(!!) stop strategy which most certainly was not the optimal way to get through the race.

That's indeed a manner of looking on it, I agree.


Henri

[dai_ferrari]

On pure pace, the MP4-20 was surely dominating in quite a lot of races this year, but not all of them. Meanwhile the F2002, as some have already mentioned, was never really pushed to its limits. Therefore it's my opinion we never saw the true potential of the car, and yet it still dominated by far and large.

[Speed_A]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


I closed the message too early, I forgot to add: the largest margin of victory since 2000 till 2004, so within the Era of dominance by Ferrari.

And indeed, your answers are correct to my knowledge.
Sorry for failing to complete my original question.


henri

I understand now! JPM in Germany 2003?

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Speed_A
I understand now! JPM in Germany 2003?

Yup.

Can't recall out of the top of my head if this had been betterd this year by anybody, can't recall if so.

henri

[Hyatt]

btw: engine power at Monza GP according to Enrico Benzing:

Mercedes: 917HP
Honda: 914HP
BMW: 906HP
Toyota: 905HP
Ferrari: 904HP
Renault: 899HP
RedBull's Cossy: 880HP
Saubers Ferrari: 878HP
Jordans Toyotas: 860HP
Minardis Cossy: 842HP

[Speed_A]

Originally posted by Hyatt
btw: engine power at Monza GP according to Enrico Benzing:

Mercedes: 917HP
Honda: 914HP
BMW: 906HP
Toyota: 905HP
Ferrari: 904HP
Renault: 899HP
RedBull's Cossy: 880HP
Saubers Ferrari: 878HP
Jordans Toyotas: 860HP
Minardis Cossy: 842HP

Hm, it looks a bit too precise but the order is probably correct.

However, for those interested in the HSJ's list, simply turn the HP numbers or team names upside down....I doubt he'll ever admit Mercedes is the most powerful engine, that could have very serious consequences for his mental health (or illness )

[peroa]

Originally posted by Speed_A
Hm, it looks a bit too precise but the order is probably correct.

However, for those interested in the HSJ's list, simply turn the HP numbers or team names upside down....I doubt he'll ever admit Mercedes is the most powerful engine, that could have very serious consequences for his mental health (or illness )

According to an interview Norbert Haug had on RTL few years ago (I know he is sometimes full of ****), the values that MR. Benzing gives out are quite accurate, maybe not the exact numbers but he certainly gets the classification right.

[Hyatt]

Originally posted by peroa
....the values that MR. Benzing gives out are quite accurate, maybe not the exact numbers but he certainly gets the classification right.

that probably just means that 900HP is closer to the truth than 90 or 9000

[prty]

De la Rosa said that he is going to reveal the full specs of the V10 in China, since they are not using it anymore, so we can see how accurate this is.
The thing is, I remember in Spa Alonso saying how McLaren could run with a very high downforce without any loss of top speed, something they can't do in Renault. So it must be quite powerful, yeah.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by prty
De la Rosa said that he is going to reveal the full specs of the V10 in China, since they are not using it anymore, so we can see how accurate this is.
The thing is, I remember in Spa Alonso saying how McLaren could run with a very high downforce without any loss of top speed, something they can't do in Renault. So it must be quite powerful, yeah.

This also has to do with drag, though. Most likely the McLaren is very aero efficient, ie. it can produce a lot of downforce with little drag penalty.

Allthough the engine no doubt has no lack of grunt, but the Honda might well be stronger and the Ferrari probably at least on par. HP's isn't the problem at Ferrari, as RB has acknowledged. The Renault engine seems to be strong on torque, judging by their excellent acceleration out of slow corners like in Imola.

[prty]

Originally posted by Wouter

This also has to do with drag, though. Most likely the McLaren is very aero efficient, ie. it can produce a lot of downforce with little drag penalty.

Allthough the engine no doubt has no lack of grunt, but the Honda might well be stronger and the Ferrari probably at least on par. HP's isn't the problem at Ferrari, as RB has acknowledged. The Renault engine seems to be strong on torque, judging by their excellent acceleration out of slow corners like in Imola.

Indeed, I think I read here those horns are used to produce the same effect as flexible wings. About Renault and torque, I think they are not as strong in that area as they were in past years (weight distribution?), but they improved in fast corners (Silverstone).

[Speed_A]

Originally posted by prty
De la Rosa said that he is going to reveal the full specs of the V10 in China, since they are not using it anymore, so we can see how accurate this is.
The thing is, I remember in Spa Alonso saying how McLaren could run with a very high downforce without any loss of top speed, something they can't do in Renault. So it must be quite powerful, yeah.

I'm very curious to see PdlR's specs but I don't have any doubts how will they look like ;)

[Fortymark]

Top speed today:
Fisichella 342 km/h
Alonso 339 km/h
PdlR 331 km/h
JPM 331 km/h
Kimi 331 km/h