David vs. Goliath(Red Bull vs. Ferrari), myth or truth?

[segedunum]

3/10ths and 30hp.

The figures are there JET I'm afraid - between two and three percent equating to around three tenths per lap on average. Read it and weep, as well as how much more fuel efficient the Mercedes is taking into account horsepower.

If the gap was that big, we would have seen Alonso breeze past Petrov no worries.

Not if you've got Renault sacrificing downforce to reduce drag and the most efficient F-duct around.

Stop talking about what happened at Abu Dhabi. It doesn't show what you want it to I'm afraid. That's why I'm looking at situations and tracks where power is an overriding factor.

I'm going to have a jolly laugh if RB gets a VW engine in 2013 and they get some locked in advantages. We'll see what people say then.

[segedunum]

Say you got 2 % more hp and a gearbox that was 2% worse in efficiency and your engine advantage would not be visible no it would look like you were down on power.

Power is an overriding factor that you can't hide. How on Earth you're going to measure that a gearbox is two percent worse than any other and comparing that to the effect of the engine I don't know, which is why it isn't done.

Once again, people are trying to split hairs and are making completely non-sensical arguments that they know can't be backed up. We have engine equalisation, not gearbox equalisation and that equalisation measures horsepower. Arguing about gearboxes or fuel efficiency, which the Renault doesn't have an advantage on at all (figures above), is neither here not there.

It's as simple as that. If you have something to back up what you're saying regarding engine power other than conjecture that can't be measured and other variables that are meaingless then I'm all ears. This has just descended into a discussion track where people see what they want to see and don't lack at what they don't want to look at.

[Giblet]

The one thing that article that I posted brought up is degradation.

Knowing what motor each team was on in Monza could make a huge difference to each and every argument here about power.

If everyone had a fresh engine every single race, you could compare one race, and use it as gospel, but until you take into account how many clicks were one each engine, the whole argument is a pointless endeavour.

This is why all the factors of an engines characteristics must be accounted for on these types of arguments.

I would rather have a fresh factory Renault engine then a 2 race old STR Ferrari engine in my car any day.

[segedunum]

The one thing that article that I posted brought up is degradation.

Knowing what motor each team was on in Monza could make a huge difference to each and every argument here about power.

Since degradation isn't and can't measured then it's a meaningless variable where equalisation is concerned. A team could run an engine at full power in every race that it runs at, but it depends on what they feel they can get away with. That's the point.

In reality it makes no difference because you still have more power to play with if you turn down a more powerful engine. You can't get away from it.

[Giblet]

It doesn't show what you want it to show I'm afraid. If you go to one circuit where horsepower is he overriding factor and you fall several places behind there's only one variable. It's as simple as that.

I've included your own quote to remind you what you are debating. You are debating that an engines performance at Monza is the overriding factor to determine the engines performance. If the motor has degraded on power, and it is not a fresh engine, then the degradation factor can easily override the power factor.

If a motor loses 30 hp after a couple of races (I've read Alonso say up to 50), degradation is easily extrapolated as a percentage and I would be very surprised if the engine manufacturers don't know these numbers. I would bet money they are well aware of these figures. They would be daft to ignore them, as any team that is not run by complete imbeciles would want an engine that degrades little as possible.

This is why degradation must be taken into account if you are trying to argue that one race will determine which engine has the most power.

[raymondu999]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that engine power is a direct function of torque, no? Also, How do you know that Red Bull's drag isn't significantly different? (Bearing in mind I'm a fan of Webber's teammate).

If Monza was completely engine dependent, then we would not see a field with cars of the same engine spread through the field. The very fact that Williams and Lotus with the same engine qualified differently on the grid points to the fact that chassis does play a role in Monza.

Btw, someone remind me how we got from "is red bull vs ferrari david vs goliath" to "renault is weaker?"

[timbo]

This has nothing to do with engine power I'm afraid, and as such, is nonsense.

Fun arguing with you.

If you don't have figures to back up what you say, as I have, it's nonsense.

Sorry, but what numbers do YOU have?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Well it's an absolute joke to think that Renault have had a power unit that was 30hp down on mercedes.
If the mercedes was new and the Renault with more than 1GP under it's belt, using the above as a benchmark, you would find mercedes powered teams blasting past Renaults for fun with a theoretical power difference of around 80hp...that's 10%!!!

Its clearly not what happened. Again, your numbers are meaningless red bull clap trap, the more you use it the more you look like horners mouthpiece...or should that be ringpiece!

Red Bull with VW power? So they will just join and be instantly wipe the floor with the opposition? With no f1 engine set up to speak of? miraculous indeed!

Keep dreaming

[raymondu999]

This has just descended into a discussion track where people see what they want to see and don't lack at what they don't want to look at.

You say Renault is down on power and people don't want to see it.
Some others say Red Bull is draggy and you don't want to see it.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

This has just descended into a discussion track where people see what they want to see and don't lack at what they don't want to look at.

You say Renault is down on power and people don't want to see it.
Some others say Red Bull is draggy and you don't want to see it.

+1

And Renault had the most effiecient Fduct did they? Really?
I guess Mclaren's was second best to theirs right?

[Giblet]

By the end of the season the Renault's has been reported as being the most effective of all the actively controlled F-Ducts.

[Steven]

Oh nice, another of these endless discussions. Suffice to say I don't like how this is unwinding.

For people at F1technical, all of you should realise that the performance of a car on track is the combination of a whole number of things, in fact everything on the car, including downforce, tyre wear, traction, suspension, drag, transmission, weight bias, yes the engine as well, and many many other things. Trying to judge on engine performance with just times and top speed is just plain wrong. As long as we don't have detailed team telemetry, none of us can isolate engine performance from other factors of the car.

On top of that, as segedenum points out, Monza is an engine track. However, it is not wise to believe it is the sole factor of importance at that track. It also seriously depends on rear traction, front wheel grip, weight distribution and obviously drag.

No matter my personal judgements on Renault's lack of top-end power, this discussion about 20hp more or less is never going to lead to any proof. All that can help are teams or the engine suppliers themselves.

Same goes for the F-duct... you guys can speculate about the most effective one, but when there are no actual numbers, pulling each others hairs out isn't going to help!

Finally, may I point out this is about Red Bull vs Ferrari and not about their engines only...

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

By the end of the season the Renault's has been reported as being the most effective of all the actively controlled F-Ducts.

Its specualtive as Tomba points out. Although Im willing to say the Renault Fduct was very good, Red Bulls was not.

Oh nice, another of these endless discussions. Suffice to say I don't like how this is unwinding.

For people at F1technical, all of you should realise that the performance of a car on track is the combination of a whole number of things, in fact everything on the car, including downforce, tyre wear, traction, suspension, drag, transmission, weight bias, yes the engine as well, and many many other things. Trying to judge on engine performance with just times and top speed is just plain wrong. As long as we don't have detailed team telemetry, none of us can isolate engine performance from other factors of the car.

+1
Again Im in agreement. And I have already said its all baseless assumptions and Wild speculation not 48 hours ago. To go by what a Renault powered customer teams principle is saying is quite ridiculous.
Their are properties the Renault unit has that the Mercedes does not, and when put together the difference really is marginal, if very slighlty in favour of Mercedes.
And by that I dont mean the margins segedunum is talking of!

As for Red Bull, their shooting over the agreed budget for 2010 kinda points to the fact that these are the big boys now. Ferrari will always be a big player but it seems red bull have the money at present.

[Giblet]

I think just about everyone, with one notable exception, is agreement that pure power is not the only factor to consider.

[segedunum]

I've included your own quote to remind you what you are debating. You are debating that an engines performance at Monza is the overriding factor to determine the engines performance. If the motor has degraded on power, and it is not a fresh engine, then the degradation factor can easily override the power factor.

Jesus H. Christ, I'm simply going to start getting impolite now because I've tried.

Degradation cannot be measured and it is not any consideration in engine equalisation. The logic is that if you have a more powerful engine (which you can measure) then the effect of degradation on you will be less then on an engine that does not have that advantage to play with.

If a motor loses 30 hp after a couple of races

I've highlighted the key word here. You cannot measure it. However, logically if you have an engine that is 15 hp more powerful then you will lose less if you have to turn down the power.

Seriously, this is playschool stuff.