F1technical.net

new engine sound:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112270

I find that the turbine shield is not fully protective anyway. What if debris goes through the tail pipe?
There's no way to protect from a failure like that.
The turbines should have been mandated to be located nearer to the floor of the car, and not in a following driver's line of vision. The driver may have to wear a shrapnel proof helmet now.

Hrmm true.. Can't say I'd like to cop a broken turbine wheel in the face following another car that happens to have a failure. Maybe the exhaust should exit to the side of the car..

If debris goes through the tail pipe it won't have much energy because the pieces will have had to have changed direction.

The major pieces of a failed rotating turbine will tend to fly off tangentially - into any shields.

If pieces come out the tail pipe the drivers will have the same issue Massa had in Hungary in 2009.

Rumours that Renault has +/- 165bhp less than the Mercedes..
Source

I heard it was closer to 167hp.

+165 less = 165 less
-165 less = 165 more

I would go for the second interpretation...

With the loss of 165 BHP how much lap time RBR may loose

2,46s according to my calculations.

BTW, is it a coincidence that my forum rating of 165 is exactly the same as the difference between the Renault and the Mercedes engine?

Blanchimont wrote:2,46s according to my calculations.

BTW, is it a coincidence that my forum rating of 165 is exactly the same as the difference between the Renault and the Mercedes engine?

It's your fault! Or you've just explained the difference between correlation and causation

Blanchimont wrote:2,46s according to my calculations.

How did you come to this number? Just curious.

Blanchimont wrote:2,46s according to my calculations.

BTW, is it a coincidence that my forum rating of 165 is exactly the same as the difference between the Renault and the Mercedes engine?

Some how, some way, it boils down to ancient aliens having an impact on power discrepancies.

Juzh wrote:

Blanchimont wrote:2,46s according to my calculations.

How did you come to this number? Just curious.

This is the result of an extremely complicated calculation i did on my 1000 core supercomputer. In the end i was able to reduce the multiple input variables of the model to

time loss (165hp) = 1:35,743 min - 1:33,283 min = 2,46s

This is extremely interesting!

With my 80386 computer from 1988, which calculation power was regarded as a supercomputer in the early eighties, I came to a result of 2.53s!!!
However, as the computer clculates a bit slower than yours, my laptimes are 1.46.120 and 1.49.050.

Well if 80bhp for 6.7s from KERS was worth 0,3-0,4s, then 160 bhp for 33s is worth aprox 10 times more is it not? so somewhere in the 3-4s area.