David vs. Goliath(Red Bull vs. Ferrari), myth or truth?

[segedunum]

Sorry, but what numbers do YOU have?

They were posted before. READ for f***'s sake. I've been as polite as possible.

The last time engine power was measured the Toyota and Renault were the least powerful engines at the end of 2009 and were something between two and three percent down - equating to around three tenths on average per lap.

Fuel efficiency? The top engine, the Mercedes, consumed around 0.05 kg more than the Renault and being the most powerful engine it doesn't take a genius to work out that it is in fact the most fuel efficient.

Put simply, there are figures to back up the suspicion that the Renault is down on power, as well as race results where power counts, and there is even figures to discount some of the ways in which people think that the Renault somehow 'makes up for it' - which isn't part of the central point - that the Renault engine is down on power.

[segedunum]

Its specualtive as Tomba points out. Although Im willing to say the Renault Fduct was very good, Red Bulls was not.

As Tomba says, how good someone's F-duct was or wasn't is irrelevant because you cannot measure it.

Their are properties the Renault unit has that the Mercedes does not, and when put together the difference really is marginal, if very slighlty in favour of Mercedes.

Once again, you have nothing, no hard figures, to back up that baseless argument with.

[segedunum]

I think just about everyone, with one notable exception, is agreement that pure power is not the only factor to consider.

Alas, those factors have nothing to do with engine equalisation or the argument that the Renault is down on power.

[segedunum]

You say Renault is down on power and people don't want to see it.
Some others say Red Bull is draggy and you don't want to see it.

The problem is that one is a reasonable constant and the other isn't.

The Red Bull doesn't magically create a lot more drag relative to other teams' cars at some circuits and not others. Neither does the Renault, incidentally.

[myurr]

But the central point is that power isn't everything. It's one of several factors that relate to how good an engine is. Even if the Mercedes is the most powerful engine, the Ferrari engine isn't supposed to be too far behind and Newey had the option taking that engine deal off Toro Rosso. He chose to stick with the Renault. If power is the only important factor, why did he not 'upgrade' to the Ferrari engine when he had the chance?

[Giblet]

Degradation cannot be measured and it is not any consideration in engine equalisation. The logic is that if you have a more powerful engine (which you can measure) then the effect of degradation on you will be less then on an engine that does not have that advantage to play with.

Why do you change what you are arguing? You say that Monza is the power race, and that it can be used to tell which engine is the most powerful.

This is completely wrong, as you need to take into account which engine has more races on it.

This is why degradation matters for telling us which engine is the most powerful. The engine at Monza with a race on it is not as powerful as a fresh one. We don't need to know the rate, but we need to know if the engine is fresh or not, otherwise you can't use Monza as gospel for which engine has the most power.

You are arguing with so many people you can't remember your own talking points. You say you can't measure it, but want to use Monza to quantify who has the most powerful engine, but you can't use one race to do that.

[segedunum]

Oh nice, another of these endless discussions. Suffice to say I don't like how this is unwinding.

Neither do I, because what is happening is that people are privately admitting that the Renault engine is probably down on power but are performing mental gymnastics by trying to argue that certain things somehow 'make it up', and things they can't measure nor are part of engine equalisation or even related to the engine.

On top of that, as segedenum points out, Monza is an engine track. However, it is not wise to believe it is the sole factor of importance at that track. It also seriously depends on rear traction, front wheel grip, weight distribution and obviously drag.

If you have a ten or twenty horsepower advantage and you can use that advantage for five or so seconds on each straight that you can't on another circuit over other teams that don't have it then they need to have a completely infeasibly big traction and acceleration advantage to overcome that. The length of the straights nullifies all of those things. If you have a power disadvantage then no advantage in any of the areas you state will be enough to achieve parity.

That's why I picked it.

No matter my personal judgements on Renault's lack of top-end power, this discussion about 20hp more or less is never going to lead to any proof.

Do we have proof? We have enough that suggests that the disadvantage of two or three tenths that Red Bull and Renault are arguing is somewhere in the ballpark. The only thing we need accurate figures from the teams for is exactly how much any disadvantage is, and we aren't going to get that for obvious reasons. Red Bull even seem to have exaggerated the disadvantage at certain times. The forty or fifty horsepower figure Horner stated at one time seems well out of whack with two or three tenths on average.

The weight of evidence suggests that the Renault is indeed down on power. Saying "Oh no it isn't!" and "Oh, but other things make up for it" in response doesn't discount that evidence for the point being made.

[segedunum]

But the central point is that power isn't everything. It's one of several factors that relate to how good an engine is.

The point here is whether the Renault engine is down on power, and it is the one performance metric used for equalisation because it is the overriding factor.

I can't believe I have to keep repeating this.

He chose to stick with the Renault. If power is the only important factor, why did he not 'upgrade' to the Ferrari engine when he had the chance?

I think you have to be a little silly to work out why Red Bull don't use Ferrari engines.

[Steven]

No matter my personal judgements on Renault's lack of top-end power, this discussion about 20hp more or less is never going to lead to any proof.

Do we have proof? We have enough that suggests that the disadvantage of two or three tenths that Red Bull and Renault are arguing is somewhere in the ballpark. The only thing we need accurate figures from the teams for is exactly how much any disadvantage is, and we aren't going to get that for obvious reasons. Red Bull even seem to have exaggerated the disadvantage at certain times. The forty or fifty horsepower figure Horner stated at one time seems well out of whack with two or three tenths on average.

The weight of evidence suggests that the Renault is indeed down on power. Saying "Oh no it isn't!" and "Oh, but other things make up for it" in response doesn't discount that evidence for the point being made.

I really don't see what you are discussing here. We can all somewhat expect that the Renault is (slightly) down on power, but there is no proof in our hands that it actually is, and certainly not by how much. It is certain though that it has other qualities.

So really... if this is going nowhere else than more ranting about the Renault engine, the thread will be closed sooner rather than later.

[segedunum]

Why do you change what you are arguing? You say that Monza is the power race, and that it can be used to tell which engine is the most powerful.

I'm not changing anything. That's what I'm arguing, and I've pointed out why I looked at Monza in addition to the only power and engine measurements we have.

This is completely wrong, as you need to take into account which engine has more races on it.

No, you dont. If you have an engine that is twenty horsepower up on another and you have to turn it down resulting in a twenty horsepower disadvantage at the end of its life, at worse you will have an engine that will be equal to a fresh engine of one of your rivals.

The point here is that you have no figures for degradation, and more to the point, you have nothing that tells us that degradation isn't relative between rival engines. In fact, having a more powerful engine just gives you another potential advantage.

Seriously, read the above paragraph several times before you reply because you obviously haven't grasped it or even read it when I've made this point in your eagerness to reply.

This is why degradation matters for telling us which engine is the most powerful. The engine at Monza with a race on it is not as powerful as a fresh one. We don't need to know the rate, but we need to know if the engine is fresh or no...

No. We would need to know whether the degradation of a less powerful engine is better than a rival, more powerful engine, giving them at least power parity or a slight advantage in some circumstances. Since you have no figures for this whatsoever nor can you argue that any engine has a degradation advantage over rivals then this is all completely meaningless.

This kind of logic is akin to Donald Rumsfeld's 'unknown unknowns' (all the counter arguments are) and is so silly it isn't funny to be honest.

You are arguing with so many people you can't remember your own talking points.

I can I'm afraid, but people are changing their counter arguments so often it's just got out of hand. The Renault is not down on power...Oh well, other factors make up for it...degradation... They've all been dealt with and yet people keep repeating them as if they haven't been.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

It needs locking sadly Tomba

One particualr horse aint up for drinking....

[segedunum]

I really don't see what you are discussing here. We can all somewhat expect that the Renault is (slightly) down on power, but there is no proof in our hands that it actually is, and certainly not by how much.

Yes we do have evidence that the Renault engine is down on power. It certainly was at the end of 2009 via various acoustic and GPS methods that even teams use, and that's the same homologated engine they used this year. The source is back in this thread. I haven't seen it discredited in any way. It was outright painted over, in fact. But, that's what certain people want to do here.......

It is certain though that it has other qualities.

This is where I don't see what people are counter arguing here. They aren't measurable or regulated, and some like fuel efficiency have been outright discredited.

So really... if this is going nowhere else than more ranting about the Renault engine, the thread will be closed sooner rather than later.

Well, it's somewhat related to the topic, but I don't see that it's heading anywhere now because people probably don't want to see how badly the chassis of their preferred teams are doing. I don't know. Some ejits think there is a watering hole, but it's a mirage in their own minds for their own piece of mind......

One thing is for sure though. I will refer to this thread in a couple of years if Red Bull get VW engines and people start bitching about a locked-in advantage that they have. Not that I will think that homologation is any less stupid, but I will look forward to it and I won't forget.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Seg you cannot even see the fatal flaw in your own argument.

You quote numbers for Mercedes unit being better than the Renault unit(because newey said so right?) Yet you yourself say this....

This is where I don't see what people are counter arguing here. They aren't measurable or regulated, and some like fuel efficiency have been outright discredited.

So how can ysou make a fair comparison then?
Give me stats on the Benz V8 compared to the Renault or just give it a rest.

You then talk of locked in advantages, and how you will refer to this thread as a means of proving your argument. Well, didnt Renault get two mods to their original engines? The long shot you are taking here is most amusing.
1)that VW will enter
2)they go with Red Bull
3)They are the best from the off(with ZERO experience)

And the cherry on the cake?

Some ejits think there is a watering hole, but it's a mirage in their own minds for their own piece of mind......

Well Im not sure the mirage is in our minds, it more aptly describes a person using speculation and passing it off as fact.
The simple truth here is that neither you nor Newey can honestly say what the Mercedes can do any more than Haug or Whitmarsh can for Renaults V8.

The Red Bull chassis was brilliant, but some of that could also be due to the more compact Renault engine. Maybe the Mercedes V8 is too bulky and chassis sacrifices are needed to accomadate it. Hence why all 3 Mercedes powered teams had less than ideal chassis for 2010.

Maybe Red Bulls vast resource capacity means that even with a Renaut engine, maybe they are gaining an unfair chassis advantage that is locked in for the year(homologation of chassis tubs etc) by them going over prearranged budget restrictions for 2010?(so much over budget it has them "nervous"AMuS)

There are bigger issues at hand than hearsay and cries of foul. maybe its best you see the big picture rather than focus on somthing you cannot prove.

[raymondu999]

mods, can we lock this thread?

[CHT]

But the central point is that power isn't everything. It's one of several factors that relate to how good an engine is. Even if the Mercedes is the most powerful engine, the Ferrari engine isn't supposed to be too far behind and Newey had the option taking that engine deal off Toro Rosso. He chose to stick with the Renault. If power is the only important factor, why did he not 'upgrade' to the Ferrari engine when he had the chance?

I believe it might have to do with fuel consumption. Having said that,is FIA going to publish car fual consumption this year?