Mercedes AMG F1 W04

[Nando]

The famed Renault drive-ability is due to the torque it makes at lower Rpm. The driver can work the car at lower revs coming out of the corners... Having said that, this could mean steadier gas flow coming from the exhausts at corner exit.

I would guess the Mercedes produces the most torque out of any engine low down. Both Merc and Macca had problems with the rear tires because of this.

I think what makes the Renault engine so good in drive-ability is how it produces it´s low down torque.

[kilcoo316]

I would guess the Mercedes produces the most torque out of any engine low down. Both Merc and Macca had problems with the rear tires because of this.

I think what makes the Renault engine so good in drive-ability is how it produces it´s low down torque.

What the ___ is that supposed to mean?!?


Torque is torque regardless of how it is produced.


Do you mean the consistency and gradient of the torque curve? (I guess that is what you are trying to say.)

[PlatinumZealot]

The famed Renault drive-ability is due to the torque it makes at lower Rpm. The driver can work the car at lower revs coming out of the corners... Having said that, this could mean steadier gas flow coming from the exhausts at corner exit.

I would guess the Mercedes produces the most torque out of any engine low down. Both Merc and Macca had problems with the rear tires because of this.

I think what makes the Renault engine so good in drive-ability is how it produces it´s low down torque.

Hulkenburg has said the Mercedes is more peaky than the Ferrari and that is saying something.. As per Renault.. I have heard its got good low end torques.. I think it was kimi that said that???

[Nando]

Do you mean the consistency and gradient of the torque curve? (I guess that is what you are trying to say.)

Yes.

If you were to map the two on a graph i think that would show you your answer in terms of usability of the Renault engine.

[user001]

I would guess the Mercedes produces the most torque out of any engine low down. Both Merc and Macca had problems with the rear tires because of this.

I think what makes the Renault engine so good in drive-ability is how it produces it´s low down torque.

What the ___ is that supposed to mean?!?


Torque is torque regardless of how it is produced.


Do you mean the consistency and gradient of the torque curve? (I guess that is what you are trying to say.)

there was once an article on AMuS on this theory that the merc engine was/is the reason for the higher tyre degrad regarding better torque/mechanical grip

and another one that the merc engine has higher top horse power. actually this does not exclude the fact of higher low speed degrad. but i assume that merc and mclaren as well as force india's engineers are not as dumb as to don't realize that and therefore change the mapping of the engine.....

[raymondu999]

The theory was indeed put out a while ago, the more powerful torque of the Fezza/Merc blocks causi more slip ratio in the tyres on traction events.

We have seen quite a few times when drivers used the rain map on their steering wheels to put less torque throuh the tyres snd help preserve their rubber, after all. Lewis often does this, for example in Hungary 2012.

[jtc127]

I thought the renault had a smoother torque curve through the midrange, which is why the drivers prefer its "drivability".

[raymondu999]

I'd agree with that. I think the drivability is not about the amount of torque output, but rather, how smooth the curve would be - allowing the drivers to have a predictable throttle response. I remember a while ago Barrichello said that the Honda was very bad in drivability terms, so much so that he didn't really have the confidence to push in traction zones, scared of wheelspin, because the peaks were sudden. Then of course he noted how the drivability of the Mercedes engine changed his life (well not literally, but you get the idea)

[kilcoo316]

Well... I think we can agree Renault are doing something right with the engine.

Wins in 2012 with three different chassis. Not bad.

[Nando]

An example of the other side of the spectrum is the first few iterations of the BMW V10 engine.
Just search for Imola onboard FW22 It´s like an on/off switch lol.

[wunderkind]

Well... I think we can agree Renault are doing something right with the engine.

Wins in 2012 with three different chassis. Not bad.

Hey!

Paul Hembery - Head of Pirelli F1 Racing

[Unc1e_M0nty]

Well... I think we can agree Renault are doing something right with the engine.

Wins in 2012 with three different chassis. Not bad.

Lets face it there's nothing in it between the engines these days, in terms of last year i'd say tyres, areo then chassi were more important for Renaults wins.

I know I'm jumping the gun a bit but I cant wait for 2014, the manufaturers can run the dyno's all they want but the on track punishment they get is different, true engine power & reliability will be back to the fore, I just love seeing F1 engines let go a full pelt and covering have the track in oil smoke.

[kilcoo316]

Lets face it there's nothing in it between the engines these days, in terms of last year i'd say tyres, areo then chassi were more important for Renaults wins.

Actually, the 2012 Pirelli's were notoriously unsympathetic to excess wheelspin.

So the Renault's more consistent torque curve would have had a significantly bearing on the race performance (tyre durability) of their cars.

[aral]

Lets face it there's nothing in it between the engines these days, in terms of last year i'd say tyres, areo then chassi were more important for Renaults wins.

Actually, the 2012 Pirelli's were notoriously unsympathetic to excess wheelspin.

So the Renault's more consistent torque curve would have had a significantly bearing on the race performance (tyre durability) of their cars.

Oops. I thought that I had opened the Merc W04 thread. Are they now running Renault engines?

[Mika1]

Can't wait to see some pics of the car and the new updates.