Horsepower of the engines.

[Blackout]

RB speed traps are much better than last year, while the others didnt gain as much in that regard. In the mean time the RB12 which is an evolution of the 11 gained almost 3s per lap, similar to Merc and Ferrari. So I dont think RBR 'dialed up DF'.
So the RB 12 was 4-5kmh behind the best cars/8kmh behind the highest top speed ('lowdrag'Williams), while they were 11kmh and 16kmh behind in 2015. But as you saw, the Williams was no match for the RB in Q and race.
The gap at the speed trap has been halved In Bahrain. Race top speeds are better and closer to the top too (slipstream bla bla, I know but even...)
Ric said PU has more legs in the last quarters of the straights.

[bhall II]

"Driveabilty" affects top speed, because it plays a significant role in how quickly power can be applied coming out of corners. It's especially important for corners that lead onto long straights.

Efficiency and ERS integration are important, because they dictate how long a PU can be operated at peak power levels.

Again, power isn't everything - but it sure as --- helps.

[Blackout]

Yes. Renault often scarified peak power during the NA engine era to make more gains in other areas. They often looked at the engine from a chassis point of view too* and wanted the fastest car possible. So they often prioritized cooling/space/aero, power delivery/driveability, consumption/weight, exhaust blowing/aero (in the 90's too)

*IMO they kinda lost that spirit in 2014... that's one of the many reasons they're struggling today IMO

What Axel plasse said in 2005 and 2006 (Dudot for example was saying the same during the 90s)
"The main point was that peak power is not always the Holy Grail even for F1. Sure, that’s what folks quote, but Plasse explains how an engine with 25 less peak power (about 2.7% of total), but with a flatter peak area gave the same lap times at Barcelona testing as the +25 hp peaky engine. Similarly, a peaky engine with the same peak power (but less area under the curve) was 0.45 seconds slower. To get the same lap time with the peaky engine, they had to run it 750 rpm faster where it had 33 more hp."
And in the V8 EBD era they even 'gave up' as much as 40hp for bigger and better exhaust flow etc.

[carisi2k]

Like PZ said, power isn't everything. If you gave me a choice between an engine with 900bhp and terrible "driveability" and one with 850-875bhp and superb "driveability," I'd take the latter without hesitation. Red Bull and Renault collected a whole lot of hardware in the V8 era with relatively weak engines that were nonetheless excellent in every other regard, especially efficiency and "driveability."

It's entirely possible, if not probable, that all PUs are indeed very close in terms of peak power output. But, that doesn't mean they're all close when it comes to performance value. (That's why Mercedes tried to silence critics at one point with a proposal to allow the other manufacturers to work with a marginally higher fuel-flow rate: raw power is far from Mercedes' only advantage, and they know it.)

Except in this case not only does the Mercedes have the 50+ hp advantage, because of it's design it also has a drivability and fuel economy advantage. Your argument is moot if your lower hp engine doesn't have the advantages in the other areas as well. The Mercedes has the overall best engine package in every area that gives them the .5 second qualifying advantage over Ferrari and the 1+ second advantage over everybody else. Does anybody on here really think that with a Mercedes engine the Red Bull wouldn't be fighting with Mercedes for a World championship. The already tight RB12 packaging would be even more tight and refined and with the extra advantages of the Mercedes engine it would easily make up it's significant gap to the factory Mercedes.

[bhall II]

Like PZ said, power isn't everything. If you gave me a choice between an engine with 900bhp and terrible "driveability" and one with 850-875bhp and superb "driveability," I'd take the latter without hesitation. Red Bull and Renault collected a whole lot of hardware in the V8 era with relatively weak engines that were nonetheless excellent in every other regard, especially efficiency and "driveability."

It's entirely possible, if not probable, that all PUs are indeed very close in terms of peak power output. But, that doesn't mean they're all close when it comes to performance value. (That's why Mercedes tried to silence critics at one point with a proposal to allow the other manufacturers to work with a marginally higher fuel-flow rate: raw power is far from Mercedes' only advantage, and they know it).

Except in this case not only does the Mercedes have the 50+ hp advantage, because of it's design it also has a drivability and fuel economy advantage. Your argument is mute if your lower hp engine doesn't have the advantages in the other areas as well. The Mercedes has the overall best engine package in every area that gives them the .5 second qualifying advantage over Ferrari and the 1+ second advantage over everybody else. Does anybody on here really think that with a Mercedes engine the Red Bull wouldn't be fighting with Mercedes for a World championship. The already tight RB12 packaging would be even more tight and refined and with the extra advantages of the Mercedes engine it would easily make up it's significant gap to the factory Mercedes.

By the way, it's moot, not mute. To be moot is to be irrelevant. To be mute is to be silent.

[Juzh]

Simply looking at the onboard recording you can see renault is nowhere on the straights (yes, still, in 2016) compared to mercedes, and 2016 ferrari PU is also behind.

Why does it always boil down to straight line performance with you, Juzh?

Straights were not a factor to Red Bull winning 4 titles on the trot between 2010-13. They were always lower than Mercedes during this time, and sometimes by more than 10km/h.
With ancient V8's.

If it were top speed being the achilles heel of a Renault powered package, DF needs to be dialled back.
The same as Mercedes powered cars having to run kg's more fuel to create DF on the EBD in the 10-13 era.

Besides... the Renault team proper manage to make some pretty decent top speed figures... nothing to do with the overall aerodynamic philosophy perhaps?

Back onto this.. are we.

"Why does it always boil down to straight line performance with you, Juzh?"

Maybe because that's what PUs are all about? Or primary factor anyway.

"Straights were not a factor to Red Bull winning 4 titles on the trot between 2010-13. They were always lower than Mercedes during this time, and sometimes by more than 10km/h.
With ancient V8's. "

Only really applies to early RB6 (pre f-duct) which was a brick. But on most occasions RB ran shorter gears, hence artificial lower top speeds. Even then, renault was not NEARLY as as far back in bhp during the V8s as it is now. RB7 and especially post summer RB9 were on most occasions equal fastest or outright fastest on some occasions (on the straights, that is).

"If it were top speed being the achilles heel of a Renault powered package, DF needs to be dialled back."

More compromises which will ultimately lower laptime to prevent being a complete sitting duck.

"Besides... the Renault team proper manage to make some pretty decent top speed figures... nothing to do with the overall aerodynamic philosophy perhaps?"

Slower in Bahrain than RB in qually over the start/finish line and in top speed trap. I can only laugh at people who put any weight into those fairy tale pre-season speed trap numbers renault was spitting out on some days.
http://www.fia.com/file/39889/download?token=7kcz4SJO
http://www.fia.com/file/39890/download?token=INUvf5rc

Watching complete onboard races you can clearly see how easily any merc powered cars walks away from renaults on the straights.

[ferkan]

Simply looking at the onboard recording you can see renault is nowhere on the straights (yes, still, in 2016) compared to mercedes, and 2016 ferrari PU is also behind.

Why does it always boil down to straight line performance with you, Juzh?

Straights were not a factor to Red Bull winning 4 titles on the trot between 2010-13. They were always lower than Mercedes during this time, and sometimes by more than 10km/h.
With ancient V8's.

If it were top speed being the achilles heel of a Renault powered package, DF needs to be dialled back.
The same as Mercedes powered cars having to run kg's more fuel to create DF on the EBD in the 10-13 era.

Besides... the Renault team proper manage to make some pretty decent top speed figures... nothing to do with the overall aerodynamic philosophy perhaps?

Yes Renault team does, but in qualis they are still far far away from merc powered teams with less downforce. How did we come to situation where someone is seriously trying to sell people that all engines are pretty close? Its bs. You take Merc, with plenty of DF and the car that still has biggest speedtraps and sector speeds in qualifying.

All Lowe is saying is "Yea compared to last two years deficit is no more 100hp, its closer". Mercs advantage is still big, if it wasnt Renault and Honda wouldnt be talking about catching up in 2017-2018

[Blackout]

Read what I wrote about RBR top speeds here.http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 18#p631218
And I use the official numbers. https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... trap_1.pdf http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-o ... ormation-8
The RBR have (much) better top speeds than last year during the test and the GP and it's clearly benefiting from that in the race for overtaking/defending, like Ricciardo and Kvyat said... RB is closer to the others.
The only car the RBR couldnt fight against during the race is the Merc but one must look what tires were being used...
The E23bis has very poor traction, it's visible and the team knows that. that's one of the reasons they have lower speed traps in the straights which follow slow corners. Cornering speed isn't much better so the Renault isnt consistent regarding straight line speed. A mechanical upgrade is scheduled for Spain.

[FoxHound]

I don't think anyone is suggesting the engines are close.

The suggestion is the gap is shrinking, and it is plausible that Renault can make huge strides with more tokens left to improve than others.

Juzh,

The suggestions you insinuate are that it's solely the engine that stops Red Bull from winning.
And the reason is they don't have as high as top speed as Mercedes/Ferrari.

I don't agree with that, and while the engine is largely responsible, it's not due to speed trap data they fall behind.
I can give you reams of data which will show Red Bull consistently slower than Mercedes powered cars from 2010 to 2013. Data averages vary but from a quick glance at "speed" tracks it's around 6-9 kmh.
They still crushed everyone 4 years running.

The issues also lay in how much rake red bull can get away with now.
Titanium skid planks clipped Red Bull's ability to run as close to the floor from 2014 onwards, making the engine look worse.

And then there's the efficiency of the engines which play such a huge role that looking at qualy data to hold speed up as a deficiency without any hint of humour is disingenuous to say the least.

And when Red Bull's are overtaking Williams down the end of a straight, you say it's "clearly better traction" but vice versa it's clearly the engine.
You play with a loaded dice and it's skews what could potentially be a worthwhile point.

[Juzh]

I don't think anyone is suggesting the engines are close.

The suggestion is the gap is shrinking, and it is plausible that Renault can make huge strides with more tokens left to improve than others.

Juzh,

The suggestions you insinuate are that it's solely the engine that stops Red Bull from winning.
And the reason is they don't have as high as top speed as Mercedes/Ferrari.

I don't agree with that, and while the engine is largely responsible, it's not due to speed trap data they fall behind.
I can give you reams of data which will show Red Bull consistently slower than Mercedes powered cars from 2010 to 2013. Data averages vary but from a quick glance at "speed" tracks it's around 6-9 kmh.
They still crushed everyone 4 years running.

The issues also lay in how much rake red bull can get away with now.
Titanium skid planks clipped Red Bull's ability to run as close to the floor from 2014 onwards, making the engine look worse.

And then there's the efficiency of the engines which play such a huge role that looking at qualy data to hold speed up as a deficiency without any hint of humour is disingenuous to say the least.

And when Red Bull's are overtaking Williams down the end of a straight, you say it's "clearly better traction" but vice versa it's clearly the engine.
You play with a loaded dice and it's skews what could potentially be a worthwhile point.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the engines are close.

Agreed.

The suggestions you insinuate are that it's solely the engine that stops Red Bull from winning.

I'm really not. Not anymore.

Engine itself and it's lack of power is however directly responsible for RB lack of straight line AND top speed. Trough the V8 years they only lacked top speed (sometimes). This was a concious decision taken by RB themselves; trade top speed in favour of acceleration. This approach no longer exists. Lower speed traps now almost always means you're simply slow on the straights.

And then there's the efficiency of the engines which play such a huge role

Another area in which mercedes excels at. Due to 100 kg/h the only way to increase power is to be more efficient. And we know which PU is the most powerful. More power means less time spent on full throttle, means higher efficiency.

looking at qualy data to hold speed up as a deficiency without any hint of humour is disingenuous to say the least

I don't even.. what?

Titanium skid planks clipped Red Bull's ability to run as close to the floor from 2014 onwards, making the engine look worse.

Titanium skids rule came in effect for 2015 season.

[Big Mangalhit]

Indeed titanium skids came back in 2015. But that helps his point really. RB won 3 races in 2014 and 405 points (vs 30 of the next powered Renault). In 2015 0 races and 187 points (vs 67 of the next renault). I think the nose/skid new rules must+ve influenced.

[Juzh]

Indeed titanium skids came back in 2015. But that helps his point really. RB won 3 races in 2014 and 405 points (vs 30 of the next powered Renault). In 2015 0 races and 187 points (vs 67 of the next renault). I think the nose/skid new rules must+ve influenced.

RB11 was a bad car from red bull's point of view. But so was renault in 2015. I think no one can deny that.

[Big Mangalhit]

Yes Renault was bad in 2015 but it was also very bad in 2014, that is way I wanted to put the next Renault team for comparison, albeit skewed because of James Key's great job in 2015. But still I think he is right, Renault had a bad PU both in 2014 and 2015 still RB was much worse in 2015 and the titanium plate or maybe other areas could've influenced this outcome.

Anyway I think we can assess the order of the PU's of the cars. We can do so by comparing sector times and using manufacturer and customers in our evaluation. We can also use comments of different F1 related people. In the end we will have a more or less accurate order of the performance of the PU's relative to each other. But even then I don't think that will co-relate at all with the BHP. As people said several times these PU's have too much complexity for peak BHP to be the great distinguisher between performance as it is on comercial cars for example. In F1 now drivability, economy, % of deployment (/harvest), packaging, cooling demands and even longevity all play a great roll on PU performance other than peak BHP.
Even if Lowe says Merc PU is only a bit better in BHP it could even be true and still the PU could be miles away from the others, He would be just throwing sand.

[Fulcrum]

Judging the horsepower of the engines by comparing speedtrap values, particularly those on the main straight, is difficult.

I'd think the slightly weaker engines would expend more stored energy on the straights to compensate and avoid being passed or allowing an overtake. At all other points of the circuit, where the engine differential does not result in the ability to pass, the energy expense from recovered sources would be lower.

They also compensate by running lower wing angles etc...

While I do think the Mercedes engine is the best, when you consider the gap to the customer teams I have to think their performance differential is more related to traction and the ability to transfer power to the road in the most efficient manner possible.

[carisi2k]

Like PZ said, power isn't everything. If you gave me a choice between an engine with 900bhp and terrible "driveability" and one with 850-875bhp and superb "driveability," I'd take the latter without hesitation. Red Bull and Renault collected a whole lot of hardware in the V8 era with relatively weak engines that were nonetheless excellent in every other regard, especially efficiency and "driveability."

It's entirely possible, if not probable, that all PUs are indeed very close in terms of peak power output. But, that doesn't mean they're all close when it comes to performance value. (That's why Mercedes tried to silence critics at one point with a proposal to allow the other manufacturers to work with a marginally higher fuel-flow rate: raw power is far from Mercedes' only advantage, and they know it).

Except in this case not only does the Mercedes have the 50+ hp advantage, because of it's design it also has a drivability and fuel economy advantage. Your argument is mute if your lower hp engine doesn't have the advantages in the other areas as well. The Mercedes has the overall best engine package in every area that gives them the .5 second qualifying advantage over Ferrari and the 1+ second advantage over everybody else. Does anybody on here really think that with a Mercedes engine the Red Bull wouldn't be fighting with Mercedes for a World championship. The already tight RB12 packaging would be even more tight and refined and with the extra advantages of the Mercedes engine it would easily make up it's significant gap to the factory Mercedes.

By the way, it's moot, not mute. To be moot is to be irrelevant. To be mute is to be silent.

Thank you. I think that was just a brain fade.