Renault RS27 vs Ferrari 056 vs Mercedes FO110X

[segedunum]

[...]

The figures stated are an accurate reflection of what the teams and engine manufacturers are working with:

Cosworth's Tim Routsis, asked at Monza for a frank assessment of where his company was on its first season back in F1 after a three season break, said: "I think all the engines are extremely close and the best measurements we've been able to take say that everyone is within about four per cent and I think we're towards the front of the pack."

There you have it. Four percent. That's what's been measured. Read it and weep. In reality, four percent is not close.

we also can conclude that for 2% less power the Renault consumes 5% less fuel..

Comparing percentages of different measures is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen written. Seriously. Ask any engineer and he'll take power over anything else, especially if it's something he can control and use only when needed.

Transmission efficiency is not a part of the equalisation process (which actually seems to make things worse) and I'm afraid the fuel efficiency argument has been debunked many, many times. Yes, the Renault consumes less fuel because it is less powerful but the Mercedes is more fuel efficient given the power on offer.

It also doesn't take into account how power is used. No one who keeps banging on about this wants to see that power is not used consistently through a race. Power is used when needed and the engine is then turned down. It's a big advantage.

The penny isn't going to drop there, however...... The figures are what they are. We've even got people now admitting that the Renault is down on power but not understanding what it is they're actually saying, and still thinking they can talk about factors they have no figures to back up and claiming that the Renault being less powerful is OK.......

[myurr]

Comparing percentages of different measures is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen written. Seriously. Ask any engineer and he'll take power over anything else, especially if it's something he can control and use only when needed.

Seriously that one's right out of the Jeremy Clarkson school of engineering. There are many other important factors at play and many scenarios in which a small trade off in power in favour of some other advantage is worth it.

Or do you think a 1000hp engine would be worth it even if it weighed 1000kg, for example. Every F1 engineer will tell you that the cars are a balancing act between different compromises. The power of the engine is one of those compromises. I bet you every manufacturer on the grid could have made a more powerful engine, but had to compromise in some fashion to make it work within the current rules (such as longer life components, weight constraints, fuel economy, torque, drivability, etc.)

[myurr]

The penny isn't going to drop there, however...... The figures are what they are. We've even got people now admitting that the Renault is down on power but not understanding what it is they're actually saying, and still thinking they can talk about factors they have no figures to back up and claiming that the Renault being less powerful is OK.......

Except the figures, such as the Renault being able to carry 4 laps more fuel on full tanks due to the efficiency of their engine, come from the same sources as the power figures. Distrust one enough to disregard it and you have to disregard the other.

You claimed in the other thread that the difference in power equates to 0.3 seconds per lap, and yet that is the same figure that James Allen reported as being the fuel consumption advantage held by the Renault over the Mercedes.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Seg
You quoted the James Allen piece but didnt see that James Allen himself said the fuel saving benefits near enough match the Merc's supposed power superiority.
[...]

Cosworth were quoting 770bhp for there power units, so the Cosworth gentlemens opinion is interesting.
If he is indeed talking of his own units being that much more powerful than Renaults, why is there a que to get the Renault V8?
Or Perhaps they are down on power, which makes it doubly interesting. Are they lying to their customers now?

Your view on "How power is used" is also most interesting. Do you have raw data to back that up(as I politely requested at the inception of this thread). Or is it just media fluff like the rest of the sources you have thus far provided?

[ESPImperium]

The figures ive always been roughly branded about for all the V8 era is as follows:

Cosworth CA2010 = 770
BMW P98/x = 765 (x = 6, 2006; 7, 2007; 8, 2008; 9, 2009)
Mercedes FO108x = 760 (x = S, 2006; T, 2007; V, 2008; W, 2009; X, 2010)
Ferarri 056 = 750
Honda RA80xE = 745 (x = 6, 2006; 7, 2007; 8, 2008)
Renault RS27-20xx = 740 (xx = Year from 2007 to 2010)
Toyota RVXx = 730 (x = 6, 2006; 7, 2007; 8, 2008; 9, 2009)
Cosworth CA2006 = 728 [the building block for the CA2010)
Renault RS26x = 722 (x = A to E as there were 5 versions of this engine) [The Building block for the RS27]

The lower powered engines have always been more fuel efficient, barring the Toyota as it has a large stroke and short bore in comparison to the more powerful engines. The Honda engine was generally a powerful engine, but had a very peaky torque band, thus limiting where they put some gear ratios from 2007 onwards with the gearbox they decided to use. BMWs problem in 2008/9 was the engine electronics, they lost arround 12% of overall power with the MES ECU from the Bosch/BMW ECU they used.

Thats the way its been explained in some magazines that i have read.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

ESPI

Why would Lotus ditch the cossie unit, if power was the be all and end all?
It goes to prove the general consensus that power is not everything.

Mike Gascoyne is no mug, and he will be well aware of Renault's qualities. Ditching a powerplant with a supposed 30hp advantage and pay MORE for what is supposedly a lesser power unit is suicidal.
But what it does show is that the Renault V8 more than make up for its power deficit in other areas.

[Blackout]

Renault RS26x = 722 (x = A to E as there were 5 versions of this engine) [The Building block for the RS27]

BS. The RS26 was one of the most powerful V8 in 2006. And according to Giorhio Piola it was the most powerful.

[timbo]

Those figures definitely change. Since 2006 we had a rpm limits changing as well as mileage, and many engines were retuned.
For example Ferrari was probably most powerful engine in 2008, but for 2009 it lost its edge for Mercedes etc.

[Blackout]

It's obvious that things changed...
When the engine freeze took place, Renault reduced their budget, starting with Viry... And they have probably decided to concentrate on other areas than power. Maybe they decided to privilege torque or consumption while others, thanks to bigger, budgets (also) focussed on power.

Drivability is another very important factor for the drivers. I remember when Barichello and Button drove the Mercedes powered Brawn for the first time they kept telling how drivable it was in comparison to the Honda and rarely talked about power...
Same thing about Vettel when he switched from the STR Ferrari to the RBR Renault.

[spacer]

BMWs problem in 2008/9 was the engine electronics, they lost arround 12% of overall power with the MES ECU from the Bosch/BMW ECU they used.

Now this I find quite remarkable. One may expect the SECU to have all the features anyone can ask from a decent high-end motorsport ECU. Do you know what caused this huge loss in power? What features did the SECU lack compared to the bosch unit that lost so much power? (disregarding driver aids)

The revlimiter-drop wasn't introduced the first secu year afaik.

[ESPImperium]

ESPI

Why would Lotus ditch the cossie unit, if power was the be all and end all?
It goes to prove the general consensus that power is not everything.

Mike Gascoyne is no mug, and he will be well aware of Renault's qualities. Ditching a powerplant with a supposed 30hp advantage and pay MORE for what is supposedly a lesser power unit is suicidal.
But what it does show is that the Renault V8 more than make up for its power deficit in other areas.

Seemingly its all to do with the rear end package, they wantted better hydrolics and thus led to the RS27 powerplant as well, and once he saw the fuel figures it made better sence to go with a slightly less powerful engine that carried less weight in terms of fuel to a powerful one with more fuel. All things are relitive in effect. But the real explination is the usage of the Red Bull gearbox and hydrolic package in effect.

BMWs problem in 2008/9 was the engine electronics, they lost arround 12% of overall power with the MES ECU from the Bosch/BMW ECU they used.

Now this I find quite remarkable. One may expect the SECU to have all the features anyone can ask from a decent high-end motorsport ECU. Do you know what caused this huge loss in power? What features did the SECU lack compared to the bosch unit that lost so much power? (disregarding driver aids)

The revlimiter-drop wasn't introduced the first secu year afaik.

BMW thrugh Mario Theissen said that the reason they lost power from the SECU is that the Bosch ECU was custom for the P86/8 engine and the MES ECU loas them power as they lost data channals and also the way the engine maps were employed with it, it just wasnt the same as the Bosch one. He said the one advantage of the MES ECU is the way it brings the data in, it was so much better, the Bosch one couldnt do lap by lap data spurts and data blasts came from a guy plugging in a cable into the car each pit stop for 3 seconds. The SECU gave them more lap by lap data.

Mario Theissen said each ECU had its pros and cons to the engine, but the power loss whitch was 12% when they started working with the SECU and then as time went on the loss was less negligable was arguably better for the overall package.

I think the power plants could be more powerful with a diffrent ECU, but then you cannot make sure that TC isnt being used.

[raymondu999]

I remember BMW used to have a moster of an engine, no? Just that it was very fragile.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

@ESPI

So we can therefore deduce(although not factually or accurately) that power is not the be all and end all of the V8 era.

I saw Red Bull pushing the envelope of PR in 2010. Not just in terms of the engine claims, but also when rivals questioned their flexing wings.
Their handling of the driver fallout was also very poor. Had they got the Mercedes V8, half the RB6 concept would have to be thrown out the window....

I think its very unfair on Renault that Red Bull can sully the name of very good V8, just for political gain on Red Bulls behalf.

[segedunum]

[...]

We've got people comparing percentages that measure different things, as if they can be directly compared. Nuts.

We've got people talking about 1000 kilo engines when they weren't mentioned. The point is, unless you've got another advantage that is way in excess of what anyone else has then you'll take any kind of power advantage. People can't read in context.

We've got people talking about fuel saving benefits when this has been done and dusted. The comments people think justify their position (from the same sources they want to discredit no less) about it were at the end of 2009 before we had experience of the reality of what happened - using power to get track position is everything. This has been explained so many times I've lost count. The fact that the Renault consumes less fuel doesn't take into account what the Mercedes gains from the power for the fuel used. Fuel consumption is not a part of equalisation, no less.

[...]

We've got people talking about a ton of other factors they think even up the power deficit, but have not a shred of evidence. However, I am still badgered for facts and figures. When I've produced them, and I'm the only one who has on this thread, it's PR fluff. Worse, none of these factors apart from power are part of engine equalisation.

[...]

Beyond that the issue here is whether the Renault engine is down on power. We've pretty firmly established that now, and we've got people admitting it but not saying it explicitly, but we can't move this on.

[...]

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Your own sources contradict your statements.
You cannot answer a simple question pertain to why Lotus went to change a 770bhp V8 for one that is supposedly 30 bhp down, and costs more.

You keep going down the rabbit hole of less fuel consumption = less power, and that the more powerful guys have the option of turning their engines down.
Well, did it not occur to you that perhaps the Renault V8 can operate at its full potential for longer than its Mercedes or Ferrari counterparts.

Or is Mike Gascoyne an idiot for asking Lotus to buy an inferior engine for more money? So we have Brawn, Haug and now Gascoyne as idiots do we?
It seems to me if it doesnt fit in with your view, you can label these guys(who are a damn sight cleverer than you) anything you see fit. What credentials do you have, that they dont... if I may ask?

The truth of the matter is the Renault is nowhere near as far behind as the doomsday 3/10ths you have been touting all this time.