Is engine equalisation currently necessary?

[RH1300S]

For quite some time now Renault engine users have been pushing to allow power equalisation, should this be allowed purely on the basis of peak bhp?

Granted, the Renault F1 engine seems to have a little less top end power, but rumour tells us that this same engine has usable power and is very fuel efficient.

Surely usability (more power over a wider range) and fuel efficiency are also performance advantages?

What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts......

Does anyone know how deeply they look at the performance envelope when equalising performance?

After all - we have all heard the expression 'hp sells engines and torque wins races'

The Renault engined cars are none too shabby at the moment and it may not be entirely due to the chassis.

P.S. - the last statement perhaps applies a little less with 7-speed gearboxes and 'seamless' shifts.


Let's try and keep this on the topic of engine performance working with a stepped gear-change if you know what I mean

[Scotracer]

For quite some time now Renault engine users have been pushing to allow power equalisation, should this be allowed purely on the basis of peak bhp?

Granted, the Renault F1 engine seems to have a little less top end power, but rumour tells us that this same engine has usable power and is very fuel efficient.

Surely usability (more power over a wider range) and fuel efficiency are also performance advantages?

What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts......

Does anyone know how deeply they look at the performance envelope when equalising performance?

After all - we have all heard the expression 'hp sells engines and torque wins races'

The Renault engined cars are none too shabby at the moment and it may not be entirely due to the chassis.

P.S. - the last statement perhaps applies a little less with 7-speed gearboxes and 'seamless' shifts.


Let's try and keep this on the topic of engine performance working with a stepped gear-change if you know what I mean

That expression is bollocks; Horsepower is the analysis of torque. In terms of equalising engines, Peak HP is largely irrelevant - you want the area under the Torque curve to be the greatest and fairly equal (as well as the distribution of torque over the rev range).

From what I've seen, you're correct - the Renault engine seems particularly tractable and if it is a little down on peak power its ultimately irrelevant.

[donskar]

scotracer, I enjoy and respect your input, but Horner also makes a reasonable point (from Autosport.com):

When asked to respond to suggestions that although the Renault may be down on power, it does have advantages in other area, Horner said: "The Renault engine is a tidy engine; it is a good engine, as is the Ferrari.

"But I think horsepower is such an over-riding element that that would come at the top - you would trade any of those aspects for horsepower.

"In terms of fuel consumption, when you have less horsepower you burn less fuel as you generate less temperature. But if you take more horsepower and you run conservatively, you can end up at the same point, but you've got it for when you need it. It is a key element, absolutely."

I agree completely with your position that "area under the curve" is a key factor. We definitely DO need some objective measure of HP/torque, rather than the more nebulous "tidiness" or cooling requirements, or fuel economy. etc.

[tommylommykins]

I guess a pragmatic analysis of the engine could be to compare how many race wins they have?

If so, Ferrari have one win, Mercedes have four wins, and Renault have four, too.

Renault engines have gained 8 out of 9 (that's a whopping 88.888%) pole positions this year.

If those two analyses are valid (are they? Is the pole position count less valid than the win count? I think it is...) then I think it would be fair to accept that the renault engine isn't really underperforming at all

[Scotracer]

I guess a pragmatic analysis of the engine could be to compare how many race wins they have?

If so, Ferrari have one win, Mercedes have four wins, and Renault have four, too.

Renault engines have gained 8 out of 9 (that's a whopping 88.888%) pole positions this year.

If those two analyses are valid (are they? Is the pole position count less valid than the win count? I think it is...) then I think it would be fair to accept that the renault engine isn't really underperforming at all

Since the chassis makes far more difference than the engine (if Horner is correct and they're at a 0.4s deficit due to engine power) it ultimately fails as a comparison.

[godlameroso]

So they lose up to .4s a lap due to the engine but make up .7s due to their chassis? I'm sorry but I don't believe the RB6 is THAT good. The Renault engine has a flatter torque curve than the Mercedes, but the Ferrari is even flatter, the Mercedes has the sharpest curve but the problem is that it forces you to change mixtures more often, which has it's own drawbacks. Honestly it seems the Cosworth is right up there with the Ferrari, but it's main problem is that it suffers from vibrations moreso than the other engines.

[ISLAMATRON]

where do you get this very specific info may I ask?

[godlameroso]

It's a guess based on watching the cars go through the gears and by the way they sound. Plus the Cosworth suffering from vibrational stress is one of the few things I can think of that cause the engine to degrade.

If you watch onboards of Mercedes powered cars, you can see after 16k rpm the car takes off, if you watch the onboards of Renault powered cars you see the power delivery is more progressive, Ferrari is very progressive as well, but the Renault is more tractable from below 10k rpm, the Cosworth has it's power come on from 13k to 17k but is pretty tractable below that. However I read in an article somewhere(don't remember exactly where) that V8 engines compared to the old V10 engines have vibrational problems at around 14k to 16k rpm.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

To get all engines equal is impossible, and Horner knows it too.
I would say that if you look at engine performance in relative terms, then compare the three Mercedes powered teams you see the stark difference. Yet all have the same power!

You cannot write rules with the intention of reducing costs, only to have a whinger like Horner come along and destroy the whole ethos. His comments on Mercedes having 40bhp more than Renault is testament to the fact this guy is all about PR BS, and nothing of any substance.
I hope that not only do his pleas fall on deaf ears, but also for him to shut his gob and get on with it.

[thestig84]

I hope that not only do his pleas fall on deaf ears, but also for him to shut his gob and get on with it.

=D> =D> Well said. Ill second that. Shut it Horner I dont hear Eric B from Renault F1 moaning non stop!

[machin]

'hp sells engines and torque wins races'

That expression is bollocks;

It annoys me when people use that phrase too... it just shows lack of understanding of the relationship between power and torque...

I believe the phrase would be better as "Peak HP sells engines, A useable power band wins races"

[mx_tifoso]

...
I believe the phrase would be better as "Peak HP sells engines, A useable power band wins races"

If that's not a catchy phrase I don't know what is.

[autogyro]

Ehhhh, gearbox helps just a tad.

[wesley123]

What i think is that it is just anhidden 'wecant keep up with mclarens developping pace so we are losing it again' in what horner said. Afterall,what is the matter of an car manufacturer to stay in F1 if your engine cannot be better then others?

[RH1300S]

Ehhhh, gearbox helps just a tad.

- I know

Anyway - the expression about hp selling & torque winning is simplified but illustrates a point very well. In fact that is exactly what CH is doing - he is selling the bhp argument and chosing to ignore the whole performance picture.

I'm sure everyone here understands the relationship between torque & bhp.

Would it be accurate to say (assuming everyting else was equal) that more bhp does give you a higher top speed? So, there is some disadvantage in less power.

However, a lap of a circuit isn't always about top speed, it's often about accleration.

It seems to me that Renault have simply made a choice about peak power against a wider spread of power and fuel efficiency.

It's probably a safe bet that a Renault engine could take to the grid for an entire GP with a little less fuel on board, therefore run lighter for an entire distance.

Also, for most circuits top speed is limited by trading downforce with speed, so anywhere a Renault car needs top speed it does have the option of trading against downforce.

I think that Horner should be careful what he asks for - quite probably what he gains in peak power he might lose elesewhere.

I have no doubt that every engineer in F1 is more than able to work out if any one engine has a true disadvantage or is simply making different performance choices.