He knows very little about Pikeys and laying tarmac if I remember.Giblet wrote:More then most of us put together or individually.autogyro wrote:What would Brundle know anyway?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80390Q. What is the sticking point over engines?
CH: I think the teams are incapable of agreeing, because there's always too much self-interest involved. I think the best way forward is for it to be regulated through the FIA. You just need to make sure you're comparing apples with apples, rather than apples and pears. Next year, despite there being no refuelling, power is still a big issue. The fact is it's remarkable how much the engines continue to evolve, despite the freeze. I think on the clear understanding that an engine is not a performance differentiator, it's been unanimously agreed that engine parity is a key issue for all manufacturers.
Q. Should one manufacturer be penalised though for spending less money and making a better engine?
CH: If you go back to the start when the freeze was put in place to save cost, you'd have to say it's done that. The problem is you freeze an advantage or disadvantage. One manufacturer did a huge amount of work just before the freeze came in. And now we find a situation where the spread under a freeze involves engines being worth 0.3-0.5 seconds per lap. That's too wide.
It spells out pretty much what I have expected. Ferrari are going to be tail enders unless they manipulate the rules via FOTA. They do not have a powerfull engine and their fuel efficiency sucks. So they now say that engine performance parity in all points is needed and they got FOTA to agree to exclude engines as a performance differentiator.The teams have decided that the engine should not be a performance differentiator under the frozen rules. I think it's vital, not just in the case of Renault, but in the case of all the engine manufacturers, that a solution is found.
What's a Pikey? Must be an English term I have never heard.autogyro wrote:He knows very little about Pikeys and laying tarmac if I remember.Giblet wrote:More then most of us put together or individually.autogyro wrote:What would Brundle know anyway?
Good stock car driver though. He got fairly close to my lap times on some of the short ovals.
I'm afraid you got things backwards WB, my sources tells me Ferrari has the most powerful as well as fuel-efficient engine of all.WhiteBlue wrote:It spells out pretty much what I have expected. Ferrari are going to be tail enders unless they manipulate the rules via FOTA. They do not have a powerfull engine and their fuel efficiency sucks. So they now say that engine performance parity in all points is needed and they got FOTA to agree to exclude engines as a performance differentiator. ROFLMAOThe teams have decided that the engine should not be a performance differentiator under the frozen rules. I think it's vital, not just in the case of Renault, but in the case of all the engine manufacturers, that a solution is found.
Then your sources must be quite unreliable. Ferrari never matched the Merc horse power in 2009. They had the hottest engine with the highest fuel consumption of the remaining manufacturers.xpensive wrote:I'm afraid you got things backwards WB, my sources tells me Ferrari has the most powerful as well as fuel-efficient engine of all.WhiteBlue wrote:It spells out pretty much what I have expected. Ferrari are going to be tail enders unless they manipulate the rules via FOTA. They do not have a powerfull engine and their fuel efficiency sucks. So they now say that engine performance parity in all points is needed and they got FOTA to agree to exclude engines as a performance differentiator. ROFLMAOThe teams have decided that the engine should not be a performance differentiator under the frozen rules. I think it's vital, not just in the case of Renault, but in the case of all the engine manufacturers, that a solution is found.
Engine parity is a way for the FIA to avenge for spearheading the breakaway-league, also why Montezuma must leave Fota.
Btw, I remember when Brundle was fighting Senna in the British F3 championship, came close to beat him at that.
That proves nothing. Spa was an event that was mainly decided by the ability to make the tyres work best in fairly cold circumstances. The whole season was heavily fought on aerodynamics, KERS and tyre setup. So engine power played a relatively small role. But on those tracks where it counted the Merc engine was superior. Fuel efficiency was almost irrelevant in 2009 for outright race performance due to the refuelling. Next year it will become very important though.xpensive wrote:Au contraire WB, my sources are xtremely reliable. Just look at how easily Kimi ran away at a power-track like Spa,
while pit-stop recordings is proof that he took on the least fuel of all point-scorers in the race.
I read that as, "in order to be accepted, we would have to give up our Mercedes engine."However, a Prodrive spokesman said: "We cannot comment on the Renault situation, but it is well known that our intention is to get back into F1. We proved our credentials earlier this year when we had a strong business case for an entry, but having had an engine deal with Mercedes-Benz in place we were not willing to sacrifice our competitiveness."
Fair enough, although I see no support for these claims.Ferrari are going to be tail enders unless they manipulate the rules via FOTA. They do not have a powerful engine and their fuel efficiency sucks.
Assuming your assertions are true (and I'm willing to accept them), the Ferrari engine is not quite hopeless -- second best in power and just behind Mercedes in efficiency. If second in power is bad, then Merc -- second in efficiency -- is equally bad? With a new approach in the engine dept -- Marmorini returning to Ferrari from Toyota -- Tifosi can hope for improvement.Power ranking in 2009
• Mercedes
• Ferrari
• Renault
Fuel efficiency in 2009
• Renault
• Mercedes
• Ferrari
