[...]
JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Inconsistent and inaccurate, becuase it only measures out to fywheel and not drivetrain.
In what way? At least it discounts other factors and is more accurate of raw figures you might get on a dyno.
However, what you point out merely makes things worse - that makes the power gap potentially far bigger with on-track data taking into account the whole drivetrain as the article auggests. We don't have the accurate on-track data unfortunately, but your argument isn't helping you. Did you not read that part of the article?
In terms of equalisation though I believe they only look at raw dyno figures for sensible reasons. It's about the engine only.
So when it is so even, what do they say are the other important factors?
But we have evidence that it is not even........ You can't just say that in light of the evidence and make it true.
And then there are three other parameters, which must be: fuel consumption, stability, cooling demand.
funnily enough Renault are
said to best in class in those 3 areas.
note the italics
Yes I do note the italics. Do you know what that means? It's useless. The only things we have any remote figures for are power and engine consumption. Have I been taking crazy pills or something JET, or have you chosen not to read what's been written yet again?
The fuel consumption argument has been thoroughly debunked above. The Mercedes is the most fuel efficient given the power it has and of course Renault will consume less fuel, because the engine is less powerful. The amount is too small to gain any real advantage. What Renault cannot do is turn up the power on the engine for two or three laps to jump someone who has pitted and then turn it down again. That's the point even Red Bull themselves have made and everyone has ignored it.
Its all relative. Consumes less fuel? Well it will to a small extent because the engine has less power. Cooling? Well, the engine that generates less power might well run cooler. Stability? What does that mean?
The figures bandied about are so vague and inconsistent they are only ballpark at best.
Can you not read JET?
"I’ve checked it out with some of the F1 engineers and it seems that the data is a pretty accurate reflection of the numbers they are working with."
So it's your word against someone who has done some investigation and talked to people.
The figures bandied about are so vague and inconsistent they are only ballpark at best. They even say Cosworth advertises its engine at 770bhp, but when Renault tested it, it came out at 740bhp(still not bad considering).
Cosworth might well have estimated 770hp before they had upgraded their 2006 V8 to the current regulations, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything. What are you hoping this little nugget of information will do for you?
[...]
