Jump to content


Photo

Current Engine Ranking???


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 Cindy

Cindy
  • Member

  • 634 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 05 September 2006 - 18:35

Does anyone have any links regarding where the different engine makers rank so far this year?

Advertisement

#2 K-One

K-One
  • Member

  • 6,241 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 05 September 2006 - 18:38

-
-
-
-
-
-
- Cosworth

#3 Cindy

Cindy
  • Member

  • 634 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 05 September 2006 - 21:16

Originally posted by K-One
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Cosworth


Cute, my Husband would agree but he is a little bias ;)

#4 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 September 2006 - 22:05

According to rec.autos.f1

Latest engine power ratings from last weeks Monza test.(Autosprint magazine)
Ferrari - Type056 785bhp (Massa's car only) MS on 2nd race engine
Renault - RS26-D 755bhp
BMW - P86 750bhp
Honda - RA807E 775bhp (2007 spec engine)
McLaren - FO-108S 740 bhp
Red Bull - Type056 760bhp
Toyota - RVX-06 745bhp
Williams - Cosworth CA2006 series 6 732 bhp
Midland - RVX-06(Toyota) 745bhp

#5 Cindy

Cindy
  • Member

  • 634 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 05 September 2006 - 22:47

Originally posted by Kenaltgr
According to rec.autos.f1

Latest engine power ratings from last weeks Monza test.(Autosprint magazine)
Ferrari - Type056 785bhp (Massa's car only) MS on 2nd race engine
Renault - RS26-D 755bhp
BMW - P86 750bhp
Honda - RA807E 775bhp (2007 spec engine)
McLaren - FO-108S 740 bhp
Red Bull - Type056 760bhp
Toyota - RVX-06 745bhp
Williams - Cosworth CA2006 series 6 732 bhp
Midland - RVX-06(Toyota) 745bhp


Thank you! You wouldn't happen to have the link do you? I tried to find them myself but came up with nothing.

#6 DCult

DCult
  • Member

  • 761 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 06 September 2006 - 19:21

Originally posted by Kenaltgr
According to rec.autos.f1

Latest engine power ratings from last weeks Monza test.(Autosprint magazine)
Ferrari - Type056 785bhp (Massa's car only) MS on 2nd race engine
Renault - RS26-D 755bhp
BMW - P86 750bhp
Honda - RA807E 775bhp (2007 spec engine)
McLaren - FO-108S 740 bhp
Red Bull - Type056 760bhp
Toyota - RVX-06 745bhp
Williams - Cosworth CA2006 series 6 732 bhp
Midland - RVX-06(Toyota) 745bhp



It's disgusting how Ferrari forced the V8 switch and then the engine freeze. I wonder why? So much for Mafia Max for saying "We have to freeze the engines now that they are about equal" Yeah, right, 53 bhp difference is about equal. Who the **** is Max fooling? Is Todt blackmailing him or something?

#7 MortenF1

MortenF1
  • Member

  • 22,326 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 06 September 2006 - 19:23

Originally posted by Kenaltgr
According to rec.autos.f1

Latest engine power ratings from last weeks Monza test.(Autosprint magazine)
Ferrari - Type056 785bhp (Massa's car only) MS on 2nd race engine
Renault - RS26-D 755bhp
BMW - P86 750bhp
Honda - RA807E 775bhp (2007 spec engine)
McLaren - FO-108S 740 bhp
Red Bull - Type056 760bhp
Toyota - RVX-06 745bhp
Williams - Cosworth CA2006 series 6 732 bhp
Midland - RVX-06(Toyota) 745bhp


funny, I thought Red Bull's engine weren't any weaker.... :confused:

;)

....Cosworth worst? (not necessarily worst - I know there's much more to an engine than peak power...) Must've ran it very detuned when these measurements were taken, 'cause the CA was said to produce 750bhp at the season opener already.

....and what's that about "MS on 2nd race engine" - They don't test with the race engines!
I suspect this article could be a bit shaky on a couple of points.

#8 Hellenic tifosi

Hellenic tifosi
  • Member

  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 06 September 2006 - 19:35

I guess it means that Ferrari tested their new engine, however only Massa will have it available.

In any case, I have always been a sworn enemy of those horsepower "rankings". IMO these numbers only serve as a rough indication of the status quo. Above all, they demonstrate how amazingly capable the F1 designers are!

Thanks a lot for sharing the info :up: :up:

#9 carbonfibre

carbonfibre
  • Member

  • 6,707 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 06 September 2006 - 19:51

Ferrari always builds good engine's. Their V10's were pretty good, very reliable and still great power + a good powercurve.

With the V8 they had a small problem in the beginning but that was it. So it wouldn't suprise me if they came out on top.

#10 Isamu77

Isamu77
  • Member

  • 562 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 06 September 2006 - 20:59

i wish they had Honda's 2006 engine data for funs sake

#11 amardeep

amardeep
  • Member

  • 586 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 06 September 2006 - 21:29

A 50 bhp spread, really ? What are the error bars on these measurements ?

Edit : thanks for reporting the info, no attack meant here, just sceptical about the accuracy.

#12 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 21,684 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 06 September 2006 - 23:04

Honda said their new engine had better delivery. The V8s did not have the variable trumpets, so torque is much less even, so HP doesn't tell the whole story.

These figures if true would be important, since these are close to the engines which will be homologated and used from 2008 onwards.

#13 Foxbat

Foxbat
  • Member

  • 3,706 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 07 September 2006 - 00:13

Originally posted by race addicted
funny, I thought Red Bull's engine weren't any weaker.... :confused:

;)


They are the getting the same spec engines afaik, but they may not be equally well-tuned (and the RB cars may not be tuned for max peak power). Remember how much the Saubers improved when they brought in the Ferrari guys instead of the Petronas people.
And then there is the design of the car, the less aero efficient may well be getting less air as a compromise ro decrease drag (or be less well cooled for the same reason).
And of course the engine used by Ferrari is probably a newer version, possibly even a newer spec as RB don't get the new engine at the same time as the Scuderia itself but there is always some lag.

....Cosworth worst? (not necessarily worst - I know there's much more to an engine than peak power...) Must've ran it very detuned when these measurements were taken, 'cause the CA was said to produce 750bhp at the season opener already.


Given the reliability of the engine, I would not surprised if they ean it detuned anyway.

....and what's that about "MS on 2nd race engine" - They don't test with the race engines!
I suspect this article could be a bit shaky on a couple of points.


Monza special? IIRC (and quite possibly I don't) Ferrari were due a new iteration weren't they, but with MS on his 2nd race it could well be that only Massa has it.

#14 Wouter

Wouter
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 07 September 2006 - 14:26

Those bhp figures seem rather suspect considering that the Mercedes and the Cosworth have been revving up to 20000 rpm - and yet they are supposed to be the weakest engines?

#15 Hyatt

Hyatt
  • Member

  • 1,485 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 07 September 2006 - 17:15

those rankings are bullshit, ... as always

#16 djellison

djellison
  • Member

  • 1,726 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 07 September 2006 - 20:21

Originally posted by amardeep
[B]A 50 bhp spread, really ? What are the error bars on these measurements ?

+/- 50 bhp

;)

Doug

#17 Slick Rick

Slick Rick
  • Member

  • 51 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 07 September 2006 - 21:06

what about torque curve characteristics, etc.

There is no way that the Renault being 30bhp down to Ferrari would keep up *unless* there were some other variables that we don't account for.

#18 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 6,523 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 07 September 2006 - 21:10

Originally posted by Slick Rick
what about torque curve characteristics, etc.

There is no way that the Renault being 30bhp down to Ferrari would keep up *unless* there were some other variables that we don't account for.


During the Turkey GP it was reported in Telecinco that a Renault engineer said they reckon if they used the same downforce levels as ferrari, to mantain ferrari's speed they would need 80 hp more. With Renault's aero efficency, of course.

#19 Melodramaz

Melodramaz
  • Member

  • 35 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 07 September 2006 - 23:57

Originally posted by prty


During the Turkey GP it was reported in Telecinco that a Renault engineer said they reckon if they used the same downforce levels as ferrari, to mantain ferrari's speed they would need 80 hp more. With Renault's aero efficency, of course.


well its proof that spanish medias knows nothing about F1 engineers joking!

because on a speedy track as turkey MS wouldn't be 0.2s by lap slower or massa 0.2s faster than alonso by lap with 80hp more!

seeing Alonso engine running at 20000rpms, 80 hp more would be around 21000rpms, so ferrari never passed 20000rpms and the RS26 is knew as the torquest one, just ask to MS why he couldn't pass while engine of alonso was detuned and finish second GP!

Advertisement

#20 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 21,684 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 September 2006 - 04:00

Originally posted by prty


During the Turkey GP it was reported in Telecinco that a Renault engineer said they reckon if they used the same downforce levels as ferrari, to mantain ferrari's speed they would need 80 hp more. With Renault's aero efficency, of course.


Yet Red Bull are trying to get the Renault engine for their team, and give their contracted Ferrari engines to their Toro Rosso team. So it appears the Renault engine is better than the Ferrari engine.

#21 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,395 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 08 September 2006 - 05:34

Better or cheaper? More fuel efficient or less restrictive with cooling requirements?

Engines are quite nuanced pieces of technology. But I doubt power is all there is to it.

When at best there is 10-15 bhp between Ferrari and Renault engines those little differences can be key... Especially price. I doubt Ferrari engines are anywhere near as cheap as Renault ones.

#22 HSJ

HSJ
  • Member

  • 14,002 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 September 2006 - 05:38

Originally posted by Kenaltgr
According to rec.autos.f1

Latest engine power ratings from last weeks Monza test.(Autosprint magazine)
Ferrari - Type056 785bhp (Massa's car only) MS on 2nd race engine
Renault - RS26-D 755bhp
BMW - P86 750bhp
Honda - RA807E 775bhp (2007 spec engine)
McLaren - FO-108S 740 bhp
Red Bull - Type056 760bhp
Toyota - RVX-06 745bhp
Williams - Cosworth CA2006 series 6 732 bhp
Midland - RVX-06(Toyota) 745bhp


Damn, I thought this year's Merc was actually pretty good, and the chassis was just not that good. But I guess the engine isn't that good either. In fact it is 2nd to last? I wonder if Kimi and Alonso have taken a look at this list and considered their 2007 prospects.

Also, Honda's 2007 engine is behind Ferrari's 2006 engine...

#23 HSJ

HSJ
  • Member

  • 14,002 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 September 2006 - 05:43

Originally posted by Wouter
Those bhp figures seem rather suspect considering that the Mercedes and the Cosworth have been revving up to 20000 rpm - and yet they are supposed to be the weakest engines?


Merc have admitted that despite high revs they are behind in power and that they don't produce as much power per revs as (some of) the others.

#24 HSJ

HSJ
  • Member

  • 14,002 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 September 2006 - 05:47

Originally posted by Slick Rick
what about torque curve characteristics, etc.

There is no way that the Renault being 30bhp down to Ferrari would keep up *unless* there were some other variables that we don't account for.


There are plenty of variables. Engine performance accounts for at most 50% of the overall performance, and probably less. Bstone is now probably the better tyre, but Renault have ruled the roost for years in traction (mechanical and TC), which counts for much more than most seem to recognize. For example, in Turkey Alonso messed up the last two corners on the very last lap, which allowed MS a chance to overtake him on the straight. If Alonso had been driving any other car than the R26, MS would have overtaken him. But the R26 out-accelerates every other car out of corners by a margin, and that saved him.

#25 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 21,684 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 September 2006 - 06:58

Originally posted by HSJ
Engine performance accounts for at most 50% of the overall performance

:confused: What's that supposed to mean? And wehn have MB said they have less horsepower per revolution, I like to read that.

#26 man from martinlaakso

man from martinlaakso
  • Member

  • 2,773 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 08 September 2006 - 07:40

Kenaltgr, you wrote :"According to rec.autos.f1

Latest engine power ratings from last weeks Monza test.(Autosprint magazine)
Ferrari - Type056 785bhp (Massa's car only) MS on 2nd race engine
Renault - RS26-D 755bhp
BMW - P86 750bhp
Honda - RA807E 775bhp (2007 spec engine)
McLaren - FO-108S 740 bhp
Red Bull - Type056 760bhp
Toyota - RVX-06 745bhp
Williams - Cosworth CA2006 series 6 732 bhp
Midland - RVX-06(Toyota) 745bhp"


This table seems a pretty realistic one. It is clear, that Ferrari has the strongest engine, it's straight line speed has ben very good in several races in a row lately. Renault comes very well out from the corners, and as an overall package it is not far from Ferrari, but still so much, that a Ferrari 1 - 2 win at Monza seems to be very probable. FA will have a big challenge against MS during the rest of this season, and even a more demanding challenge at Mac in 2007.

Williams had so big problems with blowing engines, that lately it has taken a more conservative approach. The last place in engine power ratings was to be expected.

It looks like McLaren has lost positions in this table compared to early season, where the Mac engine was ranked about 3-4th best. Could it be, that this team has thrown the tow in and concentrated to develope the 2007 car ?

#27 f1rules

f1rules
  • Member

  • 7,143 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 08 September 2006 - 07:51

man you are ......, oh so they have admitted that, what a load of crap. The merc engine is among the best, this ranking is way off, look at honda, and now hondas engine man admits it will be tough to reach 20.00 while merc and others has been doing it for some time. I said it before. Numerous engineers has said this year that the only way to gain horsepower this year is through increased rews because of the band of variable inlet valves. Its as simple as that.
Offcourse some engines have better torque and driveability but pure horsepower is gained through higher rews.
Im getting tired of your merc is the sec worst engine comments. Have you heard mclaren complaining like they have done on a number off occasions, no, why, because they know they have nothing to complain about. Well i whish you good look as a future tifosi. We, mclaren fans will mish you :clap:




Originally posted by HSJ


Merc have admitted that despite high revs they are behind in power and that they don't produce as much power per revs as (some of) the others.



#28 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 21,684 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 September 2006 - 07:52

Originally posted by man from martinlaakso
It is clear, that Ferrari has the strongest engine, it's straight line speed has ben very good in several races in a row lately. Renault comes very well out from the corners, and as an overall package it is not far from Ferrari, but still so much, that a Ferrari 1 - 2 win at Monza seems to be very probable.


If the Ferrari engine is better than the Renault, why does Red Bull want the Renault engine instead? Red Bull are arguing with Ferrari, that they want their #2 team Tero Rosso to use the Ferrari engine, and Red Bull to use the Renault. The Renault engine must be better, at least in the form that Ferrari provided it to Red Bull this year.

#29 Visionz

Visionz
  • Member

  • 300 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 08 September 2006 - 07:59

Originally posted by DCult



It's disgusting how Ferrari forced the V8 switch and then the engine freeze. I wonder why? So much for Mafia Max for saying "We have to freeze the engines now that they are about equal" Yeah, right, 53 bhp difference is about equal. Who the **** is Max fooling? Is Todt blackmailing him or something?


The whole engine freezing thingy is disgusting and idiotish.
It`s weird there are so few complaining about it..
Are we going to watch F1 for the next years if the winner has been decided before the races start - I dont think so. I cant believe grown up people in the FIA make these stupid ass decicions and the public dont complain... people seem to be more stupid than I thought generally. :mad:

#30 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 21,684 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 September 2006 - 08:18

Originally posted by Visionz


The whole engine freezing thingy is disgusting and idiotish.
It`s weird there are so few complaining about it..
Are we going to watch F1 for the next years if the winner has been decided before the races start - I dont think so. I cant believe grown up people in the FIA make these stupid ass decicions and the public dont complain... people seem to be more stupid than I thought generally. :mad:


The FIA discussed it in 2005. Yes 2005. The teams were about to get a revision but then they changed their minds about the maximu cost of providing an engine to a second team. They put up the price another 10 million. So Midland would not sign the revision. I am not sure which company objected to the price (maybe it was Ferrari?), but if the price they had talked about that weekend had been stuck to, then there would have been some scope for improving engines. The teams had agreed to the fixed engine, then they tried to change it, but they could not keep themselves together enough ...

#31 ARG

ARG
  • Member

  • 91 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 September 2006 - 08:35

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


If the Ferrari engine is better than the Renault, why does Red Bull want the Renault engine instead? Red Bull are arguing with Ferrari, that they want their #2 team Tero Rosso to use the Ferrari engine, and Red Bull to use the Renault. The Renault engine must be better, at least in the form that Ferrari provided it to Red Bull this year.


The Red Bull cars having the same spec of the 056 engine as it was used in Imola (!) in the Ferrari, so this engine is probably 20-25 bhp down to the current one of the 248 F1.
Renault would give them more upgrades during the season, that`s why they are "better".

#32 speedy

speedy
  • Member

  • 1,781 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 08 September 2006 - 08:43

It would be much more interesting to see the torque graphs of each and every manufacturer.
Cars are sold with hp but driven with torque.

#33 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 21,684 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 September 2006 - 08:44

Originally posted by ARG


The Red Bull cars having the same spec of the 056 engine as it was used in Imola (!) in the Ferrari, so this engine is probably 20-25 bhp down to the current one of the 248 F1.
Renault would give them more upgrades during the season, that`s why they are "better".


ARG, from 2008 onwards, they would use the same (fixed) engine. But not for 2007. However that deal was and is for Red Bull to be one upgrade behind, just one.

#34 qwazy

qwazy
  • Member

  • 288 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 08 September 2006 - 08:46

Ross Brawn, in an interview earlier in the season after a new engine upgrade, stated that engine performance isnt all about how many RPM's you can run.

#35 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 6,523 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 08 September 2006 - 09:26

Originally posted by Melodramaz


well its proof that spanish medias knows nothing about F1 engineers joking!

because on a speedy track as turkey MS wouldn't be 0.2s by lap slower or massa 0.2s faster than alonso by lap with 80hp more!

seeing Alonso engine running at 20000rpms, 80 hp more would be around 21000rpms, so ferrari never passed 20000rpms and the RS26 is knew as the torquest one, just ask to MS why he couldn't pass while engine of alonso was detuned and finish second GP!



Renault said in their blog that on average, to get 1km/h more with the same car, you would need 10 hp more. I'm not that sure if the engineer was joking. And notice he was saying the Renault would need it. It has a different aero efficency / mechanical grip.


Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Yet Red Bull are trying to get the Renault engine for their team, and give their contracted Ferrari engines to their Toro Rosso team. So it appears the Renault engine is better than the Ferrari engine.



Interestingly, in those measures the Red Bull engine is only 5 hp ahead of Renault's. But actually you answered yourself later:

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
The Renault engine must be better, at least in the form that Ferrari provided it to Red Bull this year.



#36 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 08 September 2006 - 09:35

Originally posted by Wouter
Those bhp figures seem rather suspect considering that the Mercedes and the Cosworth have been revving up to 20000 rpm - and yet they are supposed to be the weakest engines ?


Well they explode every other race don't they? :lol:

#37 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 21,684 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 September 2006 - 09:46

I've read though that Newey prefers the Reanult exhaust pattern for aero reasons, and also the engineers have trouble communicating with the Ferrari engine guys. Renault engine maker Mechachrome would communicate with the English Renault team, they would communicate well with RBR as well, and both teams are quite close to each other which might help the logistics.

#38 Foxbat

Foxbat
  • Member

  • 3,706 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 08 September 2006 - 12:22

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

Engine performance accounts for at most 50% of the overall performance, and probably less.


:confused: What's that supposed to mean? And wehn have MB said they have less horsepower per revolution, I like to read that.


Car will only go half it's normal top-speed when it has no tires ;)

#39 Hyatt

Hyatt
  • Member

  • 1,485 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 08 September 2006 - 12:43

Originally posted by HSJ


Merc have admitted that despite high revs they are behind in power and that they don't produce as much power per revs as (some of) the others.


Quote? Dummschwätzer!

Advertisement

#40 Hyatt

Hyatt
  • Member

  • 1,485 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 08 September 2006 - 12:48

current 'Motorsport aktuell' has an interview with Ditrich Mateschitz, they speak about the engine choice for RedBull. RedBull has evaluated the Renault and Ferrari engine pretty well with the result that they are pretty equal in terms of power but a slight advantage for the Renault when it comes to fuel efficiency and heat dissipation.

#41 The Kanisteri

The Kanisteri
  • Member

  • 11,192 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 September 2006 - 12:58

Honda seems to have lot of power. So much it even doesn't fit into engine! ;)

2x bbq for Davidson, who wants ketchup?

#42 Wouter

Wouter
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 08 September 2006 - 15:47

Originally posted by Ferrari_F1_fan_2001


Well they explode every other race don't they? :lol:

Actually, no. Certainly the Mercedes/Illmor not, it has suffered only 1 failure all year. The Cosworth has failed more often, but lots of Williams' DNF's were the result of problems with the car - gearbox for example. Cosworth was not always at fault.

As for the Ferrari clearly being the strongest - that isn't evident in the Red Bull, then. Don't forget how important aero efficiency is, and Tombazis probably has played a large role here. The Ferrari engine is doubtlessly among the best, but as Red Bull would rather have Renault anyway, there are some disadvantages to it as well. It is certainly not by far the best, otherwise Red Bull wouldn't think twice.

I would also like a quote on Mercedes admitting to having less hp, and not from the winter when the engine simply didn't rev high at all.

#43 Wouter

Wouter
  • Member

  • 5,778 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 09 September 2006 - 16:46

A lack of hp's for the Mercedes/Illmor wasn't evident in Monza qualifying: Raikkonen on pole. The Red Bulls, with their Ferrari's, down in 14th and 16th. Engine doesn't seem to be so important anymore, even on a track like Monza - aero and tyres are all nowadays. Probably this is because they're really no bad engines anymore; every engine in F1 save Cosworth is designed and build with plenty of funding (and even the Cosworth isn't bad) from big manufacturers. Differences can't be enormous, as those who got it wrong initially - like Mercedes - quickly improve with such budgets.

#44 Mobil1NSXR

Mobil1NSXR
  • Member

  • 298 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 13 September 2006 - 03:05

I think Honda should have bit the bullet and raced with the 2007 engine. They are hard to catch for 4th place and wont beat Mclaren for 3rd.

They are allowed to introduce reliability updates, so I personally would have gone with the 2007 engines rather than race into 2007 with the 2006 engines, which aren't too bad anyhow.

#45 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 21,684 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 13 September 2006 - 04:31

Originally posted by Mobil1NSXR
I think Honda should have bit the bullet and raced with the 2007 engine. They are hard to catch for 4th place and wont beat Mclaren for 3rd.

They are allowed to introduce reliability updates, so I personally would have gone with the 2007 engines rather than race into 2007 with the 2006 engines, which aren't too bad anyhow.


They still have lots of time, three races in fact. But they need I think both car's engines to complete two races. Imgine if Honda turned up and just ran their third car even for the pole runs, or they beetled around for the pole runs and finished at the back, and then they cruised around for the race and finished several laps behind but still within the finishing position. I don't think the other manufacturers would be too impressed with that if then Honda came out with "reliability" changes and then suddenly the engine became the most powerfull in F1.

I imagine the definition of reliability could be quite problematic.

I have also read that the manufacturers still think there could be a change made to the engine rules, which IMO would be healthy, if cost more money to have some development.

#46 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 10,824 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 16 September 2006 - 01:08

Originally posted by HSJ

Engine performance accounts for at most 50% of the overall performance, and probably less.


Surely purely the COMBINATION of drag and engine power with transmission efficiency account for straight line performance, in a runaway test. On a track add corner exit speed, traction account, slipstream as all equally parameters that combine to describe top speed.

How can the engine itself accout for 50% of performance.

#47 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 21,684 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 16 September 2006 - 04:36

Originally posted by Mobil1NSXR
I think Honda should have bit the bullet and raced with the 2007 engine. They are hard to catch for 4th place and wont beat Mclaren for 3rd.

They are allowed to introduce reliability updates, so I personally would have gone with the 2007 engines rather than race into 2007 with the 2006 engines, which aren't too bad anyhow.


It sounds to me as if you might have forgotten, but anyway the engines they use this season are the ones that will be homoligated and that they will use for 2008-1010 seasons. Next year they will develop engines, but those won't be allowed to be used for the following three seasons, they'll have to go back to the engines they will use in the next few races.


I do wonder how they will administer what makes a more "reliable" engine. Surely being able to run at higher revs means more reliability - so does that mean that development will continue, or not?

#48 kamix

kamix
  • Member

  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 16 September 2006 - 07:20

The teams agreed next year to use the 08 engine regs (even they realised it would be stupid not to).

#49 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 10,518 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 16 September 2006 - 07:42

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

It sounds to me as if you might have forgotten, but anyway the engines they use this season are the ones that will be homoligated and that they will use for 2008-1010 seasons. Next year they will develop engines, but those won't be allowed to be used for the following three seasons, they'll have to go back to the engines they will use in the next few races.


They agreed to use this years homologated engines already in 2007.
Apparently they are arguing now whether to use the engines from June or the engines from China-Japan.

#50 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 10,705 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 16 September 2006 - 08:00

I read somewhere that SAF1 are also planned to get the 2007 Honda spec in Japan as they are on the same engine cycle as Honda F1.

That is 4 engines.
At least one should make the Japan/Brazil race cycle to be eligible for homologation.
So there is a very good chance Honda will make it.