How did Mercedes engines get so fast at Valencia???

[ESPImperium]

I think its all down to useable torque and power curves. Where the Renault RS27 may be more spikey/lumpey to the Mercedes FO108W. Also the quality of the engines installation can help quite a bit, thats where i think Vettel has his achillies heel, the engines arnt installed properly to the car or something.

I also feel that the engine may also have a posible CoG advantage as its potentially lower in the car than any other engine, maybes only by 10 or 20mm, but that can cause a massive diffrence as it makes the car more manoverable.

I also think they have sorted out the over-torque problems that they were having with the interface between the Brawn GP Gearbox and the FO108W engine that saw Rubens have a couple of duff starts this year (Aus) and the only retirement of a Brawn GP car this year at Turkey.

I think that what the FO108W does well, the other engines, and i include the Ferrari 058 in this, just do to a satisfactory level.

But one thing i am finding this year is that the aero advantage of all the Mercedes powered cars makes the engine get into its sweet spot better, making the cars a dream to drive in the case of the BGP001 and MP4/24 B Spec car, ill also include the VJM/02 here as well.

[gcdugas]

I think its all down to useable torque and power curves. Where the Renault RS27 may be more spikey/lumpey to the Mercedes FO108W. Also the quality of the engines installation can help quite a bit, thats where i think Vettel has his achillies heel, the engines arnt installed properly to the car or something.

I also feel that the engine may also have a posible CoG advantage as its potentially lower in the car than any other engine, maybes only by 10 or 20mm, but that can cause a massive diffrence as it makes the car more manoverable.

I also think they have sorted out the over-torque problems that they were having with the interface between the Brawn GP Gearbox and the FO108W engine that saw Rubens have a couple of duff starts this year (Aus) and the only retirement of a Brawn GP car this year at Turkey.

I think that what the FO108W does well, the other engines, and i include the Ferrari 058 in this, just do to a satisfactory level.

But one thing i am finding this year is that the aero advantage of all the Mercedes powered cars makes the engine get into its sweet spot better, making the cars a dream to drive in the case of the BGP001 and MP4/24 B Spec car, ill also include the VJM/02 here as well.

The CG height, overall mass, bore centers, cam locations, alloys and more are all spec'd by the FIA.... which I find ridiculous. What room is there left for real engineering? Windage losses are part of the freeze so they can't tinker there. I want to see light and efficient V8s against monster thirsty V12s against V10s against Orbital two-cycle against rotary against Bishop valve against Coates valve against electro-servo poppet vales against who knows what. This is F1 where we had a six-wheel car against a twin chassis against turbos against Nat Aspirated against V8s against V12s against turbines and diesels. Bring back innovation. If 99.9 % of the car is spec'd in blueprints by the rules, that leaves very little room to search for speed and drives the cost way up as teams must spend a gazillion dollars in diminishing returns tinkering with the remaining .01% that the rules allow. This is F1 for crying out loud. If they would allow active suspension, CVTs and more, there would be great reason for manufacturers to stay as the marketing and engineering application to real road cars would easily cross over. Strict rules kill F1, and destroy overtaking. Remember the turbos passing the NAs on the straights only to be repassed in the twisties? The nimble Ford HB V8s won races against the faster V12s in 1993 and 1994. MS won the title in 1994 with a V8 Ford against the superior but heavier Renault V10s. But I digress...

In short, the MB engine has no CG advantage.

[ESPImperium]

True, the engine is pretty much is speced, but it may just be that there is a slight added ammount of mass of the engine is lower in the chassis. It may only be a couple of KG in it but it may just be a advantage. But in that i was also refering to the rest of the installation as well, such as radiator placement and everything else, that could also be where the real engineering could be with the FO108W.

[ISLAMATRON]

The CG height, overall mass, bore centers, cam locations, alloys and more are all spec'd by the FIA.... which I find ridiculous. What room is there left for real engineering? Windage losses are part of the freeze so they can't tinker there. I want to see light and efficient V8s against monster thirsty V12s against V10s against Orbital two-cycle against rotary against Bishop valve against Coates valve against electro-servo poppet vales against who knows what. This is F1 where we had a six-wheel car against a twin chassis against turbos against Nat Aspirated against V8s against V12s against turbines and diesels. Bring back innovation. If 99.9 % of the car is spec'd in blueprints by the rules, that leaves very little room to search for speed and drives the cost way up as teams must spend a gazillion dollars in diminishing returns tinkering with the remaining .01% that the rules allow. This is F1 for crying out loud. If they would allow active suspension, CVTs and more, there would be great reason for manufacturers to stay as the marketing and engineering application to real road cars would easily cross over. Strict rules kill F1, and destroy overtaking. Remember the turbos passing the NAs on the straights only to be repassed in the twisties? The nimble Ford HB V8s won races against the faster V12s in 1993 and 1994. MS won the title in 1994 with a V8 Ford against the superior but heavier Renault V10s. But I digress...

In short, the MB engine has no CG advantage.

Even if it were allowed in the rules you would not see it, even in the last years when any configuration of engine was allowed as long as it was 3.5L Ferrari(the last holder onto the V-12)had already switched to a V-10 because it was clearly the best all around compromise between torque & hp... the Ford V-8 were only an option for the poor teams and very underpowered. The V-10 beat out all the other configurations and it was accepted and the best solution... would that be the same at 2.4L, maybe not... maybe V-8 would be the best solution... but you still would not see many different setups because of 1 simple fact, everyone wants to win... winning trumps even tradition... that is why even Ferrari switched from V-12's to turbos and then from v-12's to V-10's again after turbos were banned.

If turbo's were re-allowed then you would never hear another NA again

Now valve-train technology area definitely needs some competition... but again I say it is not the FIA with all these restricting rules, it is the teams and FOTA who has stiffled F1. Who is trying to kill KERS & HERS and any development in F1? FOTA

And you are correct the Merc lump has no CG advantage, unless somehow it can be placed lower in the car than the other engines.

[Giblet]

If we go ahead and have everyone with different engines, the cost of the sport will skyrocket again.

Why does everyone seem to forget the fact that there is no longer room for unlimited budgets in Formula1?

[gcdugas]

If we go ahead and have everyone with different engines, the cost of the sport will skyrocket again.

Why does everyone seem to forget the fact that there is no longer room for unlimited budgets in Formula1?

No it won't! Budgets are not set by the engineers, they are set by the boards. Rudimentary free market economics and human action teaches us that the teams each hold a certain perceived value/benefit to the F1 crown and involvement in F1. It is like bidding for a Picasso or a Monet... or buying fruit. The amount of money you are willing to part with is directly proportional to the perceived value/benefit you set upon the object. This is entirely subjective and determined by each spender. To me $5/lb. is too much for organic bananas but another may want to buy them at that twice that price because he esteems them more than I do.

Audi/VW/Porsche esteem F1 less than they do endurance racing so that is where they spend their racing budget. Ferrari esteems F1 more than endurance racing so that is where they spend the bulk of their budget etc. Each team sets their budget in relation to their expected return on investment, PR/image value and other benefits. What they do with that budget is another matter.

If the regs are tight and there is only 5% of the car wherein they can tinker in search of speed, then that is where they tinker. If the regs are loose and there is 95% of the car where they can look for speed, then that is where they will tinker. Now if the regs allow CVTs, various engine configs, active suspension, then that is where the budget will get spent. They will still spend the same budget because the budget is determined by the esteem each team places upon F1 involvement. However with looser regs the teams may actually get to tinker in areas that have direct crossover application to road cars like the aforementioned CVTs, active suspension etc. To day's cars are so narrowly spec's by the regs that the teams have to spend most of their budget in the tunnels, on the post rigs, running CFD with a gazillion teraflops, and stuff that is of little practical value to the manufacturers. That will drive them away more than anything else. Look at the PR value Audi got from its LeMans diesels. That alone achieved for them more than the F1 crown has ever achieved for Renault. F1 needs to wake up and become relevant technologically for everyday road cars. About the only road car relevant thing F1 has contributed in recent years is some better understanding of combustion flamefronts, chamber shape, intake port sonics, EFI sensors and engine mapping along with TC. Now even that is frozen by the rules. This is plain stupid.

Opening the regs will tend to keep manufacturer interest. Tightening them and you approach having a spec racer series.

[Giblet]

Too verbose. The money is not there right now. What we want is exactly what you typed. What can be delivered right now, barring Ferrari with their bullshit Marlboro money, racing off of lung cancer and misery, is not open regs.

If you allow teams to start chasing 10ths in the motor department again, the teams with the biggest budgets will spend more and be faster, prompting other teams to spend more, or complain that one team can spend too much.

I fail to see how allowing free reign of technology will make the sport affordable, which right now, even without open engine regs, is all but unsustainable.

Budgets are not set by the engineers, but in an F1 team, if a trusted engineer says "Give me x$ and I can make your car x faster", then the engineers do help set the budgets.

[flynfrog]

Too verbose. The money is not there right now. What we want is exactly what you typed. What can be delivered right now, barring Ferrari with their bullshit Marlboro money, racing off of lung cancer and misery, is not open regs.

If you allow teams to start chasing 10ths in the motor department again, the teams with the biggest budgets will spend more and be faster, prompting other teams to spend more, or complain that one team can spend too much.

I fail to see how allowing free reign of technology will make the sport affordable, which right now, even without open engine regs, is all but unsustainable.

Budgets are not set by the engineers, but in an F1 team, if a trusted engineer says "Give me x$ and I can make your car x faster", then the engineers do help set the budgets.

And such is life. money=speed no matter how you try to get around it. we now have a more expensive spec series

[gcdugas]

Too verbose. The money is not there right now. What we want is exactly what you typed. What can be delivered right now, barring Ferrari with their bullshit Marlboro money, racing off of lung cancer and misery, is not open regs.

If you allow teams to start chasing 10ths in the motor department again, the teams with the biggest budgets will spend more and be faster, prompting other teams to spend more, or complain that one team can spend too much.

I fail to see how allowing free reign of technology will make the sport affordable, which right now, even without open engine regs, is all but unsustainable.

Budgets are not set by the engineers, but in an F1 team, if a trusted engineer says "Give me x$ and I can make your car x faster", then the engineers do help set the budgets.

Economic realities dictate the budget. What you would really have is the engine guy saying I can get you this much more HP for x$ and the aero guy saying I can get you so many tenths for x$ and the active suspension guy saying I can get you better tire wear, more constant contact patch and traction for x$ and the head designer saying let's go with a lighter two-cycle DFI Orbital V10 while another team say they can get better thermal efficiency with oil cooling only with a bit less power but much better aero, and another team betting they can get a diesel to deliver more drive out of the corners plus needing only a 4 speed tranny, and another team coupling a AWD CVT V8 etc. Yet another team may go with a turbine etc.

The head designer would then have to choose the best combo that works on the majority of the tracks well etc. The turbo guys would rule at Spa, Canada and Monza but suffer greatly at Valencia, Hungary, Singapore and Monaco etc. The head designer couldn't choose ALL the $$$ options for the simple reason that he must decide on a configuration, drive train, cooling needs, etc. You can't have a turbo that is lighter than a NA because of the extra plumbing and intercooler. The aero penalty for the extra radiator/intercooler would negate some advantage as would the increased thirst. A simple light V8 NA engine with a CVT might beat out a much faster V12 at some places but not all. A diesel might win at the tight tracks coming out of the corners etc.

So it isn't a simple matter of spending for speed. It is designing, packaging and configuring for speed. Remember Benetton won in 1994 with a V8 that was about 20Kg lighter but produced 70 less BHP than the V10 Renault. Senna won many races in 1993 with the same light weight V8 HB Ford engine against the dominant Williams Renaults because occasions favored the simpler lighter package which also got better mileage and was able to run several more laps on a given fuel load.

BTW, why the artificial 6 second 80 hp limit on KERS? Why not just allow regenerative braking and let the best design win. Green AND fast! No minimum weight either. Driver equalization ballast only set an the same CG height (approx R&L of the driver's lower rib).

[StrFerrari4Ever]

Interesting suggestions gcdugas but i'm afraid there's going to be people on hear who will moan and argue with it but it would be good if it actually got a chance to happen in F1

[BreezyRacer]

OK, so now we've had Valencia, Spa, and Monza. Anyone out there think that the Merc is the same spec it was at the beginning of the season?

[gcdugas]

OK, so now we've had Valencia, Spa, and Monza. Anyone out there think that the Merc is the same spec it was at the beginning of the season?

Me... BTW, Ferrari won Spa.