Renault engine fuel advantage

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The 26 could have been tidier at the rear. Their u pod concept made for fat radiators, and the prevailing pitfalls for that.
So did Mercedes.

Its not all about having a tidy ass. Its also about the sidepods and cooling requirements.

[raymondu999]

Yes but the -26 had side pods that were made larger-than-normal because it was being fed dirty air from the front tyres; and Martin Whitmarsh said repeatedly during the year that the car had too much cooling.

Like I said, the MP4-27 (with the exhausts chopped off in photoshop) and the RB8; would be a far far far better comparison. You need to compare the a well-packaged Renault with marginal cooling; against a well-packaged Mercedes with marginal cooling. A Renault with U-pods would also have had bigger side pods to allow for the dirty air from the front tyres.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

So you agree with this then??!

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.

[raymondu999]

I always agreed with that. In closely matched engines, the "other details" make the difference. The heat rejection/cooling needs, the size, the CofG even. And other things. I just didn't agree with your comparison subjects.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I always agreed with that. In closely matched engines, the "other details" make the difference. The heat rejection/cooling needs, the size, the CofG even. And other things. I just didn't agree with your comparison subjects.

Red bulls tight rear philosophy is helped by the Renault V8.
McLaren's cannot follow the same philosophy and execute it as well, so they are left to come up with U-pod extravagances.

The comparison stands. You can wheel out the W02 in comparison with the RB7 too, and the end result will still be the same.

Lets not get too hung up on the minutiae, and focus more on the points at hand.

[raymondu999]

Yes; but the devil is in the details.

I do believe the Renault probably has better fuel consumption - that has always seemed to be their strong point. Packaging - heat rejection - most probably. We don't have definitive proof of that - but I have never heard the opposite to be true.

The one thing I do question however is a more drivable engine - Rubens I remember very well saying that the Mercedes engine is super drivable, and Michael too. If I remember correctly; Schumacher also said that it was more drivable than his old Ferrari engines. I don't think we've really seen much proof of the drivability of the Renault as an advantage.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Yes; but the devil is in the details.

If that's the case Ray, then we already have definitive proof the Renault uses less fuel, and that Newey prefers the Renault due to its compact nature and heat rejection properties. The last point isn't proof per se, but Newey of all people will know the information

The one thing I do question however is a more drivable engine - Rubens I remember very well saying that the Mercedes engine is super drivable, and Michael too. If I remember correctly; Schumacher also said that it was more drivable than his old Ferrari engines. I don't think we've really seen much proof of the drivability of the Renault as an advantage.

Im not sure how you can make this comparison here. First off, Rubens had an uncompetitive Honda V8 in 2008, then got Merc V8 a few of months later. Of course the difference would seem massive, as Honda pretty much left the V8 untouched whereas Mercedes were constantly developing different exhaust configurations desgined to give more power.

You compare Schumacher, who didn't drive a competitive Ferrari for over 3 years. Well I'm afraid that Ferrari too havent remained still in this department and have also been subject to 2 FIA dispensed changes to its engine for "reliability"...of course the offshoot of that is performance.
Schumachers 2010 Mercedes may well have been more driveable then the F2007 Ferrari he tested. But then, so would Ferrari's 2010 V8 be more driveable than Mercedes 2007 V8.

Lets look at this evenly rather than criss cross different drivers with different cars at different times, its basically smoke and mirrors.
Lets keep it a fair comparison.

[raymondu999]

we already have definitive proof the Renault uses less fuel

I don't think we will ever know for sure - even if the Renault/Mercedes/Ferrari engine guys say it - they would probably not know either; given that they don't have access to other engines' data - but I do believe the Renault probably is the more frugal engine

Newey prefers the Renault due to its compact nature and heat rejection properties

Agreed. Newey has used all 3 major engine manufacturers - Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault. When Horner/Newey were complaining of the engine being short on power in 2009; they said that they couldn't use Mercedes because McLaren were vetoing the move - which is possible, I guess. But they were asking for engines to be equalized rather than for the FIA/WMSC to somehow not allow vetoing; on the grounds of blocking other teams from a competitive advantage.

Im not sure how you can make this comparison here.

Neither am I; as I'm not making one. I'm not saying that either the Renault or the Merc is more drivable - the drivability would probably change with different engine maps (rain/dry, yellow/blue/red/M&M button, G1/G2/Mix 1/Mix 2) I'm just saying (in a new line of thought) that though many people say the Renault RS27 is a very drivable unit; other engines such as the Mercedes are also very drivable - this is unfortunately an area where we'll never be able to make a conclusive judgment because quite frankly we will never see the torque/power curves.

Lets look at this evenly rather than criss cross different drivers with different cars at different times, its basically smoke and mirrors.
Lets keep it a fair comparison.

Going by that logic, we can't compare engine drivability anyways. Other than a Fisichella situation where a driver switches teams; to one that uses a different engine, then the engine would have gone through changes over the winter anyways. Which is of course for "reliability" purposes. I'm not saying you're wrong here (you seem to me pretty defensive lately, thinking my comments are all out to get you) I actually agree with you that it's impossible; for the fact that the engines change (again, for "reliability" purposes) I'm just saying it's the best we've got.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The whole 2009 "Mercedes are superior" rhetoric by Red Bull was a very cheap shot.
They issued the statement to get maximum effect, Monza.
I wonder, had Mercedes known this would happen, would they have issued a similar statement at Hungary on the grounds that Renault are more frugal and more compact than their own V8s?

Its all politics.

The facts as illustrated by the fuel mass published by the FIA, show quite conclusively that the Renault uses less fuel. Unless these figures aren't accurate?

My view is, that in a time of frozen engine regs, and with outputs pretty much linear throughout the grid other factors like heat dissipation, fuel economy and compactness all are performance differentiators.

By isolating 1 track, and isolating horsepower only, as Christian Horner did, you only paint half a sketch. 0.3-0.5 seconds he said was the difference.
When I read that quote of his, you realise why he is where he is.

[raymondu999]

The facts as illustrated by the fuel mass published by the FIA, show quite conclusively that the Renault uses less fuel. Unless these figures aren't accurate?

Yes; but I don't remember ESPI ever coming back to us and confirming that his calculations were based on Q3 Renault runners' post-quali weights compared to their first stops in dry races.

My view is, that in a time of frozen engine regs, and with outputs pretty much linear throughout the grid

I don't think the different engines are producing the same power/torque curves. Similar, maybe. In the same ballpark, maybe. But I don't think same power. However that would probably only account

By isolating 1 track, and isolating horsepower only, as Christian Horner did, you only paint half a sketch.

I isolated only 1 track? Huh? I didn't even mention any circuits in my post. Though to be fair to Christian - the engine plays a far less important role in other circuits. Monza is the place where engine (and a drag-efficient car, admittedly) should show.

[/quote]When I read that quote of his, you realise why he is where he is.[/quote]
Of course he is. If he weren't pushing to give his team an advantage he should be fired. Romantically it's not the right thing to do. I may not like it, you may not like it, but that's his job.

[Fredy4]

All this talk of the Renault being smaller, easier to package...

How do you know this?

Unless there are published dimensions then going by the bodywork is just stupid.

The mercedes could be smaller for all we know.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

My view is, that in a time of frozen engine regs, and with outputs pretty much linear throughout the grid

I don't think the different engines are producing the same power/torque curves. Similar, maybe. In the same ballpark, maybe. But I don't think same power. However that would probably only account

I did say pretty much linear. Not the same.

I isolated only 1 track? Huh? I didn't even mention any circuits in my post. Though to be fair to Christian - the engine plays a far less important role in other circuits. Monza is the place where engine (and a drag-efficient car, admittedly) should show.

You didnt, Christian Horner did as I pointed out.

Of course he is. If he weren't pushing to give his team an advantage he should be fired. Romantically it's not the right thing to do. I may not like it, you may not like it, but that's his job.

I really dont get the impression Whitmarsh, Brawn, Boullier or Domenicalli were out to do this at any stage. There was all the fuss about the flexing wings, but in my view I think that was warranted. Domenicalli could have moaned blue buggery to get "equalisation" as could Renault themselves.Horner or Red Bull have nothing to do with engines.
If they want to compete in F1, and are bemoaning their engine as unsatisfactory surely they should be building their own rather than denigrating Renault?

[CHT]

All this talk of the Renault being smaller, easier to package...

How do you know this?

Unless there are published dimensions then going by the bodywork is just stupid.

The mercedes could be smaller for all we know.

at least there are a few occasions where merc and ferrari powered cars couldnt make it back to the pit after crossing the line last season. ran out of fuel perhaps?

[raymondu999]

You didnt, Christian Horner did as I pointed out.

Ah. You were using "you" as a generic term for "people." i thought you meant you as in, me.

I did say pretty much linear. Not the same.

Linear in what way? As in, what vs what?

at least there are a few occasions where merc and ferrari powered cars couldnt make it back to the pit after crossing the line last season. ran out of fuel perhaps?

Happened to Renault runners too to be honest. For Fernando's case in Germany; Nando was out of fuel. Ditto Button in Suzuka.

All this talk of the Renault being smaller, easier to package...

How do you know this?

Unless there are published dimensions then going by the bodywork is just stupid.

The mercedes could be smaller for all we know.

I don't remember exactly; but aren't the dimensions available in the public domain? I'm not sure. I'll have to defer to some of the more F1-resourceful members of the forum.

[CHT]

Happened to Renault runners too to be honest. For Fernando's case in Germany; Nando was out of fuel. Ditto Button in Suzuka.

I can only remember webber told to preserve fuel only once, but they have never run out of it. For Merc engine I think it did happen on several occasions in last season.