Renault engine fuel advantage

[Robbobnob]

that will be one of the reasons why vettel is able to run away on the first lap all the time

[Hail22]

Speaking of fuel, does Ferrari and Mclaren still use immensely cold/partially frozen fuel? or has that been banned?

[simieski]

Speaking of fuel, does Ferrari and Mclaren still use immensely cold/partially frozen fuel? or has that been banned?

6.5.2 states fuel must be within 10 degrees of ambient temperature

[Shaddock]

Have they worked out a way to measure the temp of the fuel in the cars? (thinking about the fiasco in Brazil)

[Pup]

Yes, they learned to read the thermometer instead of the memo from Max.

[jenkF1]

so in theory does this mean they can turn it up a wick to consume more fuel on an agressive engine map and therefore its the most powerful engine on the grid?

I suppose the answer to that question is it looses its efficiency advantage when run on a performance engine map...probably.

[CHT]

okay I crunched some numbers...

assuming car + driver = 640kg
fuel weighs .711kg/litre
Mercedes uses 250 litres of fuel for the race
Mercedes uses 18 litres extra of fuel per race
Mercedes produces 765BHP
Mercedes produces 15BHP more than Renault
the race is 60 laps long

and produced a great graph on EXCEL but unfortunately I'm too thick to be able to publish it on here (any advice welcome)

however what it shows is at the start of the race REDBULL have a tiny advantage
0.9595 as oppose 0.9567 (BHP/KG)

by lap 11 however the advantage has switched to Merc
0.9896 as oppose 0.9894 (BHP/KG)

and by the end of the race Mercs advantage has grown significantly
1.1903 as oppose 1.1675 (BHP/KG)

Now I understand what Jean François Caubet, Renault's F1 director means when he says 'as far as drivability and fuel economy go, the Renault engine is out in front'

the Renault ways less for the entire race so uses the tyres better and creates less G through YAW movement (maybe I just made that up), however I now also understand why the Merc cars performance gets better as the race goes on

It is really hard to tell if the Merc powered cars are getting faster towards the end or the Renault powered RBR are taking lesser risk and slowing down on purpose towards the end. If Merc cars are indeed faster at low fuel load, then how do we explain RBR being so strong with their qualifying?

My view is that Renault powered RBR only disadvantage is they are low on power, however they will gain on fuel economy and tighter package, which will translate to better aero efficiency, less drag, more down force and less tire wear. I reckon that should be more than make up for the 15bhp low on power.

With the engine staying the same till 2014, I think the best chance for Merc and Ferrari cars to beat RBR is to develop a car that can out qualify them on sat, and block them on sunday. Without clean air, I think the RBR will suffer.

[raymondu999]

If Merc cars are indeed faster at low fuel load, then how do we explain RBR being so strong with their qualifying?

Well the chassis is probably a stronger chassis for qualifying, for one.

[Mr.S]

Maybe RBR have tilted their cat to a more qualy set-up than race set-up. To be honest starting with a lower fuel load than others they can afford to do that. Or maybe RBR is utilizing their tyres better for 1 lap,their DRS is more efficient than Mclaren(unlikely).

I dont know the exact reason but I would give Vettel 2-3 tenths in Q3. I think he is the best qualifier in the grid & only Nico Rosberg is close. There is noway the W02 should have been within 1s at Abu Dhabhi. Anyways Vettel does that little extra,manages the tyres well & gets that 2 or 3 extra tenth somehow.

[Hail22]

Christian Horner stated again last week that the rake of the car is completely different this year due to the loss of their EBD.

You can tell from comparison photos the car is less aggressive at the rear at Jerez.

[myurr]

There's another factor in this. If RBR are to be believed then they were only ever cold blowing from their engine. The Mercedes engined cars were hot blowing, therefore using a lot more fuel. This would have been extra weight they needed to carry throughout the race. It also would have meant more weight being carried in qualifying and a larger fuel tank being required leading to a less streamlined car.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I reckon the difference between the engines in terms of Performance is marginal.
Probably favours Mercedes by an absolute ball hair.

The big difference comes in packaging. When engines are so closely matched, this area becomes the bigger performance differentiator.

Judge for yourself.

[raymondu999]

It's not fair to compare the packaging to the MP4-26. That car was made wider and lower for the U-pods; so definitely if viewed in projection from the top the packaging will be bigger. Probably a better comparison would be the W01/W02/MP4-27.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

It's not fair to compare the packaging to the MP4-26. That car was made wider and lower for the U-pods; so definitely if viewed in projection from the top the packaging will be bigger. Probably a better comparison would be the W01/W02/MP4-27.

Its totally fair. McLaren decided on the U-pods, no one else.

And Mercedes had the bulkiest radiators of all the front running teams, allied to its vastly different concept (SWB), it was a "fat" car that had a tidy tail.



The RS renault V8 is easier to install in a tight aero concept and therefore has obvious benefits.

[raymondu999]

My point was that if you looked at it from above; the -26 would definitely look massively wide because they made the side pods wider ON PURPOSE. I'm not disputing the RS27 is better to package - all that I've heard on that points to this conclusion. But the -26 is made wide on purpose. Unless you're comparing just the engine cover, sans side pods.