Mercedes AMG F1 W07

[SectorOne]

Obviously Red Bull has the better chassis,

And by obviously you mean what?

[Just_a_fan]

They mean fanboy. To a fanboy, RedBull is obviously better but for the engine.

Laughable but that's fanboys...

[hurril]

If you would debate with logic rather than fanboyism that would be very nice.

In the V8 era, Renault gave Red Bull a very good engine. Down on power but very programmable and perfect for the exhaust blown diffuser. Renault was in fact very annoyed that Red Bull took all the credit for their success, and kept claiming that the Renault V8 was inferior.

Also, until 2016 Red Bull was not a customer team, they were the Renault works team. They had a strong influence on the engine development. Part of their problems in 2014 and 2015 was because they pushed to have the engine development accelerated, bringing in premature updates and that negatively affected engine reliability. Their incessant whining led a breakdown in relation, thus spurring Renault to resurrect their own F1 team.

You cant have a car, without an engine . If it's a bad engine, it's a bad car.

Fanboyism? Why don't you go after my arguments instead of calling me names. That would be nice.

Mercedes won the constructors championship so I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that theirs is the best car. Do you want to quibble with this?

Renault does not build the best engine. Do you want to quibble with this?

RB were the only ones that seriously threatened the mercs. Do you want to quibble with this?

Are you familiar with deductive reasoning and implications? Want to give it a go?

The rest of your post consists of mostly half-truths and non-sequiteurs. (If I'm a fanboy of anything, it's the Honda engine.)

[hurril]

They mean fanboy. To a fanboy, RedBull is obviously better but for the engine.

Laughable but that's fanboys...

Wtf? Are you really going to go football fan on me? I really do not give a rats ass about Red Bull. This is a technical forum - please be better than this.

[Just_a_fan]

They mean fanboy. To a fanboy, RedBull is obviously better but for the engine.

Laughable but that's fanboys...

Wtf? Are you really going to go football fan on me? I really do not give a rats ass about Red Bull. This is a technical forum - please be better than this.

Ok, give a detailed technical appraisal showing why the RedBull "obviously" has the better chassis.

[Eddie_Temple]

This thread is completely derailed and I apologize for contributing to the nonsense but from a "supplier/customer" perspective it's interesting to consider the following:

RB is a Renault PU customer - no doubt the redbull chassis flattered the PU (2nd Place)
Look at all Merc customers with the supposedly "superior" packaging of the Merc PU - RB destroyed them all and even made a few look quite silly.

RB's chassis advantage tend to bring more to the table than a Merc PU does but it's fair to say a Merc PU in a RB chassis would be quite scary indeed. Sure you cannot buy a RB chassis for 20mil like you can the Merc PU - but that customer price doesnt reflect the billions in which Merc invested.

Obviously Red Bull has the better chassis, but to win in F1 you cant just depend on a good car, its also about how you allocate your resources. It's possible that Mercedes could have had a better chassis if they had allocated a greater portion of their resources behind chassis development. However they instead chose to allocate resources to the PU. It's worked out for them pretty well.

Another thing to consider is that the Mercedes and Red Bull chassis seem to have very different philosophies. I'm not an aero expert, but just by looking at onboard videos and watching races, the two cars behave very very different.

Not sure why you're bringing resource allocation into this. You're acting as if they have equal budgets and thats as far from the truth as possible.

If rumors are true Mercedes spent over 1 billion developing their PU before the cars hit winter testing in 2014. That was mostly written off by the parent company under R&D and thus enabled Merc F1 to run their standard budget dedicated to chassis and team.

They've reaped the advantage benefits ever since and maintained a standard and "unknown" PU advantage.

The race team is free to spend a few hundred million on chassis just like Red Bull. My guess is both teams spend as much on their chassis and aero. One look at the detailing on the Merc PU aero should be enough to tell you they might be spending the most.

Red Bull is actually quite efficient with their money and has some of the best simulation software. YES, they have a mighty budget but please spare us the "resourcing" comment, its unfounded and untrue and doesnt take into account the R&D budget from mercedes you're ignoring.

In fact when it comes to resourcing, I'd rather have RB spending my money - look at what they can do with a few hundred million and that PILE of renault in the back against the billions of Mercedes.

Merc spent MORE money - and they spent it smart. That's why the last 3 seasons went down the way they did, a goliath throwing billions against some teams spending small percentages of that.

[hurril]

They mean fanboy. To a fanboy, RedBull is obviously better but for the engine.

Laughable but that's fanboys...

Wtf? Are you really going to go football fan on me? I really do not give a rats ass about Red Bull. This is a technical forum - please be better than this.

Ok, give a detailed technical appraisal showing why the RedBull "obviously" has the better chassis.

I already stated that case. Twice. Based on the fact that they perform close to the mercs without having their engine power. As in: Car - Engine, whatever you want to call that, seems to perform very well.

My remark about technical forums stems from the fact that you seem to have taken an interest in my person by wanting to call me things. No need for that.

[bosyber]

I already stated that case. Twice. Based on the fact that they perform close to the mercs without having their engine power. As in: Car - Engine, whatever you want to call that, seems to perform very well.

Seem to perform very well, I think most of us can agree on that. But Mercedes was still clearly doing better.

You claim that that is solely their PU advantage. And then you say that because Red Bull is so far ahead of Renault, but also well clear of the client Mercedes teams, they must have the better chassis.

Now, Mercedes has the same engine (better integration, is that part of the chassis?) as those clients, but is even further ahead of them, while Manor is a bit behind Renault.

From this follows a chassis order of : Mercedes >> FI > Williams >> Manor, and Red Bull >> Renault. Also, yes Mercedes PU > Renault PU. We can reasonably say that FI,Williams > Renault too, and reason that Red Bull >> FI, Williams chassis, given the PU difference.

But the most we can say from this is that Red Bull and Mercedes both have a strong chassis, and which is 'the best' is speculation based on how big we believe the real engine difference is currently.

I also have to say that in power Mercedes probably has a big bonus in qualifying, but in the race the PU mainly seems a bit better on driveability, and not clearly much more powerful anymore. Might also be Red Bull having more drag.

[Just_a_fan]

Of other consideration is that in FP the RedBulls might get close to the Mercs but barely if ever get ahead. Then in Q when the Mercs turn their PU up to max-attack mode they pull away. This suggests that in degraded-PU form the Merc is as good as the the RedBull. In degraded-PU form I bet the engines are at parity (or as close as makes no difference).

One thing to consider is that the Renault engine is constantly blamed by Horner and we only really have RedBull's word as to how "bad" it is. As Horner has a history of blaming Renault on the bad days and claiming RedBull greatness on the good days, we might need to take his comments with a pinch of salt.

[wesley123]

I already stated that case. Twice. Based on the fact that they perform close to the mercs without having their engine power. As in: Car - Engine, whatever you want to call that, seems to perform very well.

My remark about technical forums stems from the fact that you seem to have taken an interest in my person by wanting to call me things. No need for that.

Close? No. Closest? Yes.

Mercedes is quite far ahead of everyone else, far enough to make it clear that it is not all PU.

But if Red Bull had the better chassis, then how come they didn't win on the tracks where power doesn't matter that much?

[Muulka]

I already stated that case. Twice. Based on the fact that they perform close to the mercs without having their engine power. As in: Car - Engine, whatever you want to call that, seems to perform very well.

My remark about technical forums stems from the fact that you seem to have taken an interest in my person by wanting to call me things. No need for that.

Close? No. Closest? Yes.

Mercedes is quite far ahead of everyone else, far enough to make it clear that it is not all PU.

But if Red Bull had the better chassis, then how come they didn't win on the tracks where power doesn't matter that much?

Oh yeah, they didn't get pole at Monaco and almost beat Mercedes to the victory at Singapore, the two lease power-sensitive tracks on the calendar. And they definitely weren't nowhere in Monza...

[dans79]

Oh yeah, they didn't get pole at Monaco and almost beat Mercedes to the victory at Singapore, the two lease power-sensitive tracks on the calendar. And they definitely weren't nowhere in Monza...

Getting pole in a lottery qualifying isn't something to brag about, nor is almost winning when the guy that beat you was substantially hindered by a slower car and an inferior alternate tire strategy. Nor is almost beating someone who was having technical issues with the breaks.

[hurril]

I already stated that case. Twice. Based on the fact that they perform close to the mercs without having their engine power. As in: Car - Engine, whatever you want to call that, seems to perform very well.

Seem to perform very well, I think most of us can agree on that. But Mercedes was still clearly doing better.

You claim that that is solely their PU advantage. And then you say that because Red Bull is so far ahead of Renault, but also well clear of the client Mercedes teams, they must have the better chassis.

Now, Mercedes has the same engine (better integration, is that part of the chassis?) as those clients, but is even further ahead of them, while Manor is a bit behind Renault.

From this follows a chassis order of : Mercedes >> FI > Williams >> Manor, and Red Bull >> Renault. Also, yes Mercedes PU > Renault PU. We can reasonably say that FI,Williams > Renault too, and reason that Red Bull >> FI, Williams chassis, given the PU difference.

But the most we can say from this is that Red Bull and Mercedes both have a strong chassis, and which is 'the best' is speculation based on how big we believe the real engine difference is currently.

I also have to say that in power Mercedes probably has a big bonus in qualifying, but in the race the PU mainly seems a bit better on driveability, and not clearly much more powerful anymore. Might also be Red Bull having more drag.

No I do not. Wtf is wrong with you guys? Hung over? I have yet to use the word "chassis" as you can verify by, you know, actually reading my posts. My god - you are a sorry bunch of argumentative people.

Quote me and explain why that given paragraph is wrong.

[atanatizante]

Of other consideration is that in FP the RedBulls might get close to the Mercs but barely if ever get ahead. Then in Q when the Mercs turn their PU up to max-attack mode they pull away. This suggests that in degraded-PU form the Merc is as good as the the RedBull. In degraded-PU form I bet the engines are at parity (or as close as makes no difference).

One thing to consider is that the Renault engine is constantly blamed by Horner and we only really have RedBull's word as to how "bad" it is. As Horner has a history of blaming Renault on the bad days and claiming RedBull greatness on the good days, we might need to take his comments with a pinch of salt.

1. Merc did at least 2 steps back this year : the first one is by downgrading their MGU-H after Hamilton`s issues early in the season and the second step - and the bigger one - was when they have had that ICE failure in Malaysia ... therefore they downgraded the oil but more important was the fact they were running in safe mode engine mappings both in Qualy and race since then ... and these were the reasons why RB was running so closer behind them in the final races ...

2. My worry is RB`s car for next year, when is suggested that their big advantage will be regarding those new aerodynamic changes - especially with one to have a bigger diffuser for 2017 - ... this major change will favor more towards their primary car design direction - with rake car setup philosophy, rather then Merc`s car design used between 2014-2016 ...

3. And the worst fear is RB`s ability to by-bass that FIA T-tray tests, therefore could be run a bigger difusser in races then anybody else ... that`s why Ricci told us, later this year, they have had the best chances for a win only on a wet race ...

[zac510]

Isn't there a phpBB plugin algotrithm that can detect a circular argument and automatically lock the thread, yet?